Roy Eric: Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill — Second Reading 
Roy Eric: Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:6864] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I would like to take a brief call on the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the debate as it has taken place this afternoon and it is pretty clear that the bill has enough support to pass its second reading in the House and ultimately become law. But I wonder why we are passing this law. It is not because of the argument that has been proposed that this can have only a minimal effect. The point I make is that we are passing a law and in the course of the debate this afternoon we have seen a past member of the executive of this Government the Hon Paul Swain use stolen material gleefully and for what he perceived to be his or the Government’s advantage. We know that this material was stolen. We know that it is the subject of a police inquiry. It has been purloined from the privacy of some people’s computers by a series of acts that could only have been calculated and then perpetrated for gain. 
So here we are passing a bill saying: “Joe Public out there do not spam us.” We have laws about stealing and laws about using stolen goods. But we have had an example this afternoon of a past member of the executive gleefully using stolen goods. I ask the House what sort of an example that is. What sort of a role model is that? We hold up our hands in disgust when we hear of people in State houses subletting them and going into their own private homes. Again if we want the public of New Zealand to behave in a way that is acceptable the standard that we as leaders of this nation set cannot be compromised. I believe that this afternoon we have seen a degree of compromise that I have not witnessed here for some time. I am concerned and no doubt this will not be the last of it but I say to the House this afternoon that if the members opposite were not part of the conspiracy to steal then why are they now so gleefully and with complicity using the material? Their very action today approves what happened whether or not they were involved. They are sanctioning by their behaviour what went before. The question that I will leave in this respect is— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Assistant Speaker. My understanding of the Standing Orders is that it is absolutely against the Standing Orders to imply that anyone in this House who is involved in any criminal act whatever let alone a conspiracy to steal as that member asserted. I am outraged. 
ERIC ROY 
: Speaking to the point of order Madam Assistant Speaker I have not asserted that anyone stole; I have asserted that people have been using stolen goods. Madam Speaker you allowed this debate to be advanced when you— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No just speak to the point of order. 
ERIC ROY 
: The point is that you have allowed this section of the debate to be promoted by myself now by allowing the debate in the name of the Hon Paul Swain. I am just responding to that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member certainly did not accuse any member of stealing. He raised it as an issue. The member will continue. 
ERIC ROY 
: I will wrap up now. I simply want to say that I and the public of New Zealand and can I say to members of the Opposition the police will want to know what the Government knew and when it knew it. The Government’s behaviour over the next few weeks will be of great interest to myself the public and the police.