Auchinvole Chris: Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Auchinvole Chris: Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7716. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 An aspirational bill is how I would describe the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill—it is an aspirational bill. This is very much in keeping with the present Government’s approach towards all legislation at the moment; it is aspirational. What one wonders is the effect of an aspirational bill? Well it works something like this. There are three main points. There is public concern over an issue and a mounting public demand for action on the part of the Government. Legislation is introduced that has appropriate titles and ambitious objectives and that is presented in a way that will give the impression of having a serious intention to deal with the issue placate the public clamour for action and even enthuse people towards participating in it. The third step is when the policy or the bill is carefully examined and it is found it will not actually work in the way the public thought it would. Then it is termed “aspirational”. 
We have endured an amount of things being classed as aspirational in recent months. From memory we had aspirational ideas over the waterfront and other stadia. We have aspirational policies for climate change and so it goes on. I guess the recent proposal to alter probation controls will be termed aspirational when they do not come into fruition. The access to farms policy will now be aspirational given that it has changed completely from what was promised initially. 
In this Government bill which was subtitled the “anti-spam legislation” the clear thrust was to reduce the amount of spam received—at least that was the perception amongst many of the people who are aware of the legislation.. But no it actually cannot do that. The reason is that most if not all of the spam received in New Zealand is generated overseas and in spite of the current discussion over how we conduct foreign affairs be it through government or personal opinion our legislation is unlikely to affect spam producers in Eastern Europe. So the legislation will not stop spam from coming into New Zealand from overseas. Will it prevent people from sending it within New Zealand? It will certainly apply penalties for doing so but at present that is not happening to any extent. And so again we are at the aspirational stage—if anybody were to send or transmit spam within New Zealand we would get them. 
This therefore is not just an aspirational bill; it is a virtual bill. It is more virtual than real. In reality it does virtually nothing as the Minister knows. It is legislation imported from the USA via Australia and it has been reasonably shaped in the Commerce Committee to suit New Zealand commercial circumstances. As part of an international system of safeguards National is prepared to support the bill as an integral part of an international strategy to reduce geographic locations that spammers might operate from but National will not pretend that it will reduce the amount of spam received in the short medium or even long term on computer screens in New Zealand. 
The bill though did raise some interesting debate. It was a good debate to have in the select committee and I trust Mr Assistant Speaker you will permit me to provide a few illustrations that emerged in terms of defining and describing unsolicited information. First of all is it unsolicited or simply unwanted? That was quite a good question to discuss. I am put in mind of question time during which the Minister who has just spoken seems to view any questions about the matter of Taito Phillip Field as unsolicited unwarranted and unwanted. 
In the second reading of this bill I remember the Hon Paul Swain speaking at length about electronic mail and the subsequent release of information that was otherwise regarded as private. From my memory of that Mr Swain seemed to support the release of private information. If only Mr Swain would be forthcoming over his activities in Samoa when he was over there enjoying the considerable and extensive hospitality provided for him and the honourable Mr Goff! Having visited Samoa frequently over a period of a decade I can vouch for the quality of that hospitality. Previously— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. However I come back to unsolicited information. My conclusion is that this is a virtual bill from a Government increasingly perceived as being a virtual Government. The New Zealand electorate requires more reality in its legislation.