Hide Rodney: Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hide Rodney: Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7722. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 It is very good to follow my colleagues Pita Sharples and Nandor Tanczos. I am interested in Mr Tanczos’ comment that we cannot legislate against stupidity. That is certainly true. But our job is to not legislate stupidly and I am afraid having heard the speeches that in respect of the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill we are in danger of legislating stupidly. That is why the ACT party will be voting against it. 
I pick up on Dr Sharples’ speech. Dr Sharples in speaking in support of the bill spoke all the way through about its intentions. Its intention is to stop spam and he said that is a good thing. Of course it is a good thing but just legislating intentions does not actually produce a result. We can legislate all the good intentions that we like. We can have policies filled with good intentions but that does not mean those good intentions will be fulfilled. Then when Dr Pita Sharples talked about the practicalities of the bill he was not talking about it in the sense of how it would stop spam; he said we had to be a bit careful because it would have costs. Of course this bill will have costs. Dr Sharples said the official advice was that the cost was something like on average $1000 or so for a small business. 
So we have to say to ourselves that this is interesting: here we are in Parliament passing legislation that intends well but has a cost of maybe $1000 per small business which is no mean amount. Dr Pita Sharples in particular drew attention to Maori small businesses and so he should but there are other small businesses. Let us take the example of a small Maori business that is struggling away and suddenly has to come up with $1000 to cover the costs of our Parliament’s intention to stop spam. I am sure we all feel good standing up in this Parliament saying we are against spam. Well the cost does not fall on us; the cost of it falls on the very small businesses that Dr Sharples represents here in this House. 
Then we have to ask ourselves whether the cost we are imposing is worth the candle. I see nothing in this bill to justify that cost other than politicians in this Parliament and this Government standing up and saying that they care about spam. 
Maryan Street 
: Then read some of the submissions. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I love Maryan Street. Here is Labour. I know that half of its members would not turn on their computers. The thing I like about Mr Tanczos is that he knows how to turn a computer on. He uses it and indeed he is like me in that he prefers to use Linux and open-source software rather than propriety software. I can tell members that I prefer to do so too. Particularly after updating to Windows Vista Linux is a good option. 
I know that Mr Tanczos knows that this bill will not actually change spam at all. It will be passed into law. I know that Maryan Street might have a great intention that legislation will somehow change people’s behaviour but this bill will do nothing to change people’s behaviour. 
Maryan Street 
: Grow up Mr Hide! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I love Labour’s response for me to grow up. I quite like being young. I would hate to be old and miserable like members of the Labour Party are so I am quite happy to be the Peter Pan in this Parliament. So I as the Peter Pan of this Parliament will tell members the problem with the legislation. How on earth does passing this bill change what a Nigerian spammer will do tomorrow? I have to say that Nigerian spammers are not sitting there with their crystal sets listening to Maryan Street telling Rodney Hide to grow up and saying that they had better not send any more spam to Maryan Street of the Labour Government because it passed a law against spam. No siree! Spam from Nigeria China and indeed from the United States of America will continue. Let me say that the United States of America passed exactly this legislation. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask David Cunliffe who shakes his head and says it was slightly different whether the legislation stopped spam in the US. No it did not. 
The bill refers to people who are—I love this bit; it shows legislation in this Parliament coming up against cyberspace—physically present in New Zealand. That is interesting is it not? How does one upon receiving spam work out where on earth the person sending it is physically present? It is not easy because the spammers live in cyberspace and the same idea of—[ 
Interruption 
] David Cunliffe knows so much. His answer to every problem is more legislation and how about we pinch property rights and impose more costs on small business? To hang about the result! I am interested in what it is costing New Zealanders and whether it will achieve the required result. I have to say that Mr Cunliffe has been an abysmal failure in achieving results in the cyber-world of New Zealand. 
The best argument we have come up with for this bill is that we will—I love this bit—“send a signal”. Mr Tanczos is quite right: spammers send out millions and millions of pieces of spam. I tell members that I do not get spam; the only place I get it is on my parliamentary server. I have a home email that is far more public than my parliamentary email and on my home email I do not get spam. Why? It is because I take precautions to eliminate it. I get more spam on my parliamentary server than anywhere. I say to Nandor that we know how to stop spam do we not? Sure some spam gets through but that is two-fifths of next to nothing. 
 So we are passing this law to send a signal. I can imagine that the spammers in Nigeria China and the US—and indeed wherever because we do not know where they might be—are all shaking in their boots because a signal has been sent. The signal was received that Maryan Street and Labour—and indeed 119 MPs in this House—voted to intend to stop spam and say it was banned. It will not make one bit of difference. In fact all around the world they say that what we will have is a multilevel approach to dealing with spam—sort of like a UN in cyberspace. As more and more countries pass more and more anti-spam legislation has anyone noticed what is happening with spam? It is going up. So the legislation ain’t working. The answer is not more knee-jerk legislation. The answer is to follow the ACT party get oneself up to speed or employ someone who is up to speed and engage in some anti-spam software which in my experience certainly works in New Zealand. That works far better to send a signal than any legislation that this Parliament can pass. This legislation will just mean more red tape for business Internet service providers and people in New Zealand. 
In a way it demonstrates why we need a regulatory responsibility bill. What we need in this process is some openness some transparency and some accountability for the laws that we are passing. Quite frankly I am shocked that in this day and age this Parliament is standing up and passing legislation simply because of good intentions. I know that the National Party can see through that. I look forward to those members joining the ACT party and voting down this bill. Thank you very much Mr Speaker for your time.