Hide Rodney: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Second Reading 
Hide Rodney: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3933] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 When I left off I was questioning Keith Locke’s attitude in opposing this bill. I want him to stand up in this House and explain why he opposes it. Here is a member who has supported some of the most repressive regimes that the 20th century ever saw. He supported Soviet troops going into Afghanistan. Those troops inflicted a terrible toll on the Afghani people Here is a man who supported the Soviet Union’s expansionist policies abroad and its policies at home. He has the audacity— 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have never supported Soviet domestic policies in my life. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: At least we have cleared up one thing. He supported Soviet policies abroad. Mr Locke by his own admission has supported the Soviet Union in the past. Even the Communists do not now agree with the terrible range of terror they inflicted on people around the world. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have said in this House that I no longer support the policies that Mr Hide is alluding to in terms of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan which was 23 years ago. He is implying that I still do. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No that is not a point of order. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Here is a man who by his own admission in the past supported the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan where people like Mr Locke would have no rights whatsoever to speak their minds or their views or to stand for election—indeed to be in Parliament. It is hard to imagine that a person could support such a tyrannical regime. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I ask the speaker what bill we are discussing. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: We are discussing the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill. I would have thought that all members whatever our political differences would have come to the House anxious to secure our people’s freedom our rights to political office and our rights to free speech. That is what this bill does but Mr Locke—and that is what I want him to explain to the House—says that somehow our rights are being infringed. I understand that because the price of freedom is that one has to give a little bit away. How much did they give away in Afghanistan? How much did they have to give away in the Soviet Union? How come the Green Party and Mr Keith Locke oppose this measure to protect New Zealanders while some years ago they ticked the tyrannical measures of Soviet expansionism? They were wrong years ago about the Soviet policy and they are wrong about the threat that terrorism poses to the free world today. 
That is what I want Mr Locke to reflect on. He admits that he was wrong then; could he have the good grace to admit that he might be wrong now and to actually understand that it is a bit of a “thin blue line” to coin a phrase that protects our people our democracy and our freedom—the very things that Mr Locke says he is in favour of and the very things that have been crushed abroad by tinpot dictators? I say to Mr Locke that I am happy to hear his views but that I wish that people in other countries could have the rights he enjoys. As a citizen and a parliamentarian why does he not support them rather than opposing us here?