Mark Ron: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Mark Ron: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12293] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this bill in its third reading. I have to say that the debate and discussion we have had has been somewhat passionate. In general the views of members in the House are not shared by the Green Party and I want to put that on record. The one thing I love about this country of ours is that we are a democratic nation. We are free to express our views and to have our say. We are free to stand up for those views in the highest court in the land and to express them without any fear whatsoever that our ability to do so will be interdicted our lives threatened or that we will be trampled on by the boot of the State in order to silence us because what we are saying is not popular well-received or liked. 
In that respect I have to say that it is a good thing that we have parties in the House like the Greens. I probably will not be thanked for saying that by some of my political colleagues but it is. Because at least there is that voice out there warning and cautioning people as to the loss of privacy and rights. However I have to say that my views are somewhat different from theirs. This legislation has come about because of a need. What is that need? The need is based on the fact that we have organised crime in this country simple burglars who have the technology to defeat our law enforcement agencies and people who can roam around in cars at night. Take boy racers. The technology that boy racers have courtesy of the telecommunications industry is such that they give the police a very difficult time tracking their movements and curbing their unlawful activities. That is at the low end of the scale. 
At the higher end of the scale we have burglars who would break into one’s home and steal one’s possessions. They are able to carry out their unlawful business because they can monitor the police airwaves. Why? Because our police force does not even have secure communications. How ridiculous is that? I will not use the word that comes to mind. I would say that it is extremely ridiculous. It is exceedingly ridiculous that the criminal fraternity can intercept the police’s communications but the police are not in a position to intercept theirs. What does that do? It hamstrings law enforcement agencies and does not assist law-abiding citizens who have had crimes committed against them. 
 Then there is the gang situation. Gangs are dealing in an organised manner and on an international basis in the trafficking of drugs. They pose a greater threat to our community particularly to our children and as we are hearing more and more frequently to young vulnerable women whom young male predators would exploit through the use of drugs—drug rape. The case involving Mr Isherwood is an example. 
But at the top end of the scale terrorism threatens our very existence let alone our lifestyle. Sometimes we have to swallow a dead rat and accept that legislation such as the Crimes Amendment Act (No 6) the Terrorism Suppression Act and now the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill need to exist if we are to guarantee safety and security to our people our children and our country. Everyone knows that this will not solve all the problems. Terrorists by their very nature are extremely adept at subverting systems and at ensuring they remain undetected. But when we have reports that a person who is No. 2 in al-Qaeda may well have visited this country at least twice one has to consider that he might have brought a cellphone with him that it might have been a secure cellphone and that even if the police or the telecommunications companies had known he was here and had moved to intercept him they might not have been able to do so. That is a silly situation to allow to continue. 
Mr Power’s concern and lack of confidence in a future National Government Cabinet really gives me great concern. The fact that he does not believe he has confidence in future National Ministers led by Don Brash to review an exemption proposal being proposed by a Minister gives me great cause for concern. I would simply say to him that under a New Zealand First - led coalition Government he would not have those same concerns. I am pretty sure the clauses dealing with exemptions that the Government is passing could well be handled inside a Government that we are part of or leading. I understand his concerns about lack of confidence in Mr Don Brash— 
Hon Annette King 
: Where is the National Party? 
RON MARK 
: Yes where is the National Party? It is a shame that Mr Power is not able to listen to me here in the House but hopefully he is by other means. But I would tell him to take heart. He may not have confidence in his colleagues in a future National Government to exercise with confidence the duties and responsibilities under clause 11 and he may not have confidence in Don Brash in Tony Ryall or Nick Smith. But help is on its way: his party could always form a coalition with Labour. I am sure there is enough skill on that side of the House to overcome those deficiencies. 
I am somewhat distracted Mr Speaker because I have never in my entire time in this House been here when one party chooses not to be represented. I do not know whether that is outside the Standing Orders but it certainly has to be outside the Standing Orders in the eyes of the public for there not to be one National Party member in this Chamber—not one. So when the press is looking for an Opposition I tell them that they can come to New Zealand First. We are standing here representing the Opposition. We will handle the workload on our own. We do not need to hide under the skirts of the National Party. We are quite capable of representing the opposing views of New Zealanders. If Don Brash does not want to do the job then I am ready to step in with my leader Winston Peters to do it for him. It seems that he does not just run from debate— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will come back to the bill. 
RON MARK 
: He does not just run from this Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill. Not only have I not seen him representing his views but his entire caucus seems to be absent without leave. 
I finish by saying that we should focus seriously on the need for this bill. If members of the House have any concerns may I mention a few names: Riyadh Istanbul Manila Bali Baghdad Australia—the various plots there—and Great Britain. If people are still in any doubt having listened to those names they should consider the tens of thousands of victims and then read section B1 of today’s  
Dominion Post 
.  
I said a long time ago after the attacks of September 11 that one needs to be very very careful of the people we are dealing with internationally when there are people who openly state: “Why kill a tiger if you can kill a lamb?”. That gives one an indication of the mentality and the drive behind the things they do. New Zealand is not a benign country. For anyone who wants to make an impact on the United States or Britain there is no softer target than New Zealand. I sincerely hope and pray that we never see the day when we have people come into this country determined to make an impact a political point by killing Americans Australians or Britains on sovereign New Zealand soil. I simply say to people who would oppose such legislation that they should think about those things because not only will Americans Australians and Britains be killed there will be collateral damage that will involve innocent New Zealanders.  
Members may think that my thoughts are a little far-fetched but I know these people. I lived and worked in the Middle East for 6 years. My job was in the Defence Force. My speciality was inside a special force and I worked with some very very good people who dealt with these issues on a day-to-day basis. We are not a benign little country. We are part of the global community and we are as vulnerable as anyone else to a terrorist organisation that may seek to make a point regardless of the consequences involving innocent bystanders and people who played no part in the situation that they the terrorist organisations find themselves in.