Jones Dail: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3531] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
:  
Speaking on behalf of New Zealand First I think the preceding members have covered the situation under this bill extremely well. I take the point raised by the Hon Peter Dunne that New Zealand First is also opposed to the state of terrorism and the dreadful activities that have taken place overseas. We do not want them taking place here.  
I mention in passing as reference to the 1977 legislation when I was a member of the Government in those days we had the situation of Ananda Marga at that time and we had what were perceived to be problems with Dr Sutch and information being passed over to the Soviet Embassy at the time of the cold war. Today’s situation is really much worse than that and it is a real threat. Peter Dunne made the point that we must not effectively throw out the baby with the bath water. No member has as yet touched on clauses 21 to 27.  
In clause 27(4) especially we are changing the onus of proof under which one can act under this legislation. Usually when we are involved in a criminal type of proceeding the onus of proof to establish a prosecution is “beyond reasonable doubt”. We do not have the fairly strict “beyond reasonable doubt” requirement in this legislation we have a loosely worded phrase that some members may not fully understand. Clause 27(4) states: “The standard of proof in any proceedings under this section is the standard of proof that applies in civil proceedings.” That really does not tell us anything because then we have to ask what is the standard of proof in civil proceedings. The bill could have been better drafted and I am disappointed that no Minister of Justice or justice spokesperson from the Government has taken the call in this matter.  
Clearly what that means is that the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities which is a much lesser test than “beyond reasonable doubt”. Under that much lesser test we can get a pecuniary penalty of $500000 against a person. That is not tough enough insofar as the penalty itself is concerned. Why is there no jail sentence in this legislation? We are looking purely at a company. Surely we should be in a situation in this legislation that we could be a bit tougher and imprison someone who does not comply with this legislation. If we are dealing with a big company it can pay the $500000 out of profits or whatever or borrow the money but nobody goes to jail. Why cannot we be tougher still? I will be interested to see when this bill comes back from the select committee whether the select committee takes up the point that if people commit an offence under this legislation in the sense that if they do not comply with the compliance order the High Court has the option to ascertain who the person or persons were who did not comply with the requirements and send them to jail. At this level up to $500000 is not terribly much for the types of people involved and of course the types of offences involved.  
Hon Dover Samuels 
: After that $500000 a day. 
DAIL JONES 
: Yes and impose a further penalty of $50000 for each day after while the contravention continues. But if we are dealing with people who have billions of dollars a $500000 fine is neither here nor there. Trying to lock them up would be more important.  
I am concerned that this Government has again failed to put up a justice spokesperson the Minister of Justice or the Attorney-General. I believe that this House has been sold short in these justice areas since I have been here. The Labour Government has no concern from the point of view of the protection of the individual insofar as his or her legal rights and suchlike are concerned.  
If the Labour Party had any concern for justice and legal rights the Attorney-General would have stood up in this House and explained the situation. I will be very interested to see the penal provisions in this bill when it comes back from the select committee Those provisions touch on the matter Peter Dunne talked about which is that if we bring in this legislation we are taking away people’s rights and we should have a clearer indication from the Government as to what it is that is being removed from our rights.