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:12289] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Although I disagree with those arguments if I was to take them and accept them the very first question I would ask that member is what the alternative is. What does that member offer me as an alternative that would give me cause not to vote in favour of this bill but to support the approach that he might consider best suits our needs? The bottom line is whether we agree or disagree with the invasion of Iraq. New Zealand First made its position very clear on that issue and I know that it surprised the Green Party. We were opposed to intervention without United Nations approval. So we have agreed on that. But the point I make is those issues are irrelevant to our dealing with the problem we have here. We have the possibility of terrorist individuals and organisations and people involved in organised crime using telecommunications to do their business. What is the alternative to interdiction if we do not pass this legislation and grant these powers? I might well agree with many of the things Mr Locke said but I am waiting for the alternative. I have a horrible feeling that when we finish up today at 6 o’clock I will still be waiting for an alternative solution. 
I also want to address the points made by Mr Power not so much to criticise him but more to prod the two Ministers who have sat in the chair and said nothing. We have had two highly paid Ministers in the chair. Mr Barker sits there doing what I do not know. He has not offered one explanation to Mr Power. We had the other Minister who also offered no explanation. If I might help the Minister who is more highly paid than me who enjoys the pleasures and luxuries of ministerial facilities a big car and a flash leather chair I draw his attention to page 21 of the interdepartmental report. He might like to stand and answer Mr Power because the answers are all there if the Minister cares to do his job. Hello? I am still waiting. If I might prepare myself for future appointment to a ministerial position because quite clearly some people do not seem very intent on doing their job I draw Mr Power’s attention to the telecommunications interception capability departmental report dated 11 August 2003. He should go to page 21. The issue of the Minister granting exemptions is very well covered there in clauses 11 and 12. It states clearly that the Minister may exempt any network operator from the requirements of section 7. It goes on to talk about the Minister granting exemptions unconditionally or subject to conditions and the period that they may be granted for which the Minister must specify. But it goes on to further state that before granting verifying or revoking an exemption the Minister must consult with responsible Ministers. 
Simon Power 
: No one in that Cabinet! 
RON MARK 
: I say to Mr Power that if he had a bank of Cabinet Ministers headed by Don Brash would he be confident that in consultation with those Ministers his Minister could capably give an exemption? We are saying that the Minister will not have that power on his own; he will be required to consult. 
The National Council of Women—surprise surprise—supports the exemption clause. It said that the clause appeared to be fair to all parties. The Telecommunications Carriers Forum supports the exemption clause and said that it thought the bill should provide some guiding principles around special circumstances rather than provide an example. It went on about some examples in particular and said that further exemptions should be included in that provision. It submitted that exemptions should be provided where it is not cost-effective or practical to provide an interception or where it would damage the reputation or purpose of the product or service and that another exemption should be where a trial or limited network or service was being provided. The comment was made that it is appropriate to keep wide the grounds for granting an exemption to allow the legislation to be future-proof and that providing guidelines as to special circumstances might inadvertently limit those circumstances. The recommendation that was accepted by the committee was that there be no change to the clause.