Tanczos Nandor: Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill — Second Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:6860] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I am rising on behalf of the Green Party to speak to the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill also known as the “Spam Bill”. It is something the Green Party has had discussions with the Minister about at various times because it is an issue of growing significance. 
Having said that I do want to acknowledge the comments made by Rodney Hide about the bill and questioning how much it actually achieves. I think he is absolutely right that it is arrogant and counter-productive for this Parliament to pass legislation that has no effect other than to salve the conscience of parliamentarians or to send some sort of message to the public. I think he is quite right to oppose the bill if that is what he thinks we are doing. It is not unusual for this House to do that very thing. There are many pieces of legislation I can think of that have passed through this House with great support and are really just about making politicians feel they are doing something positive and have no effect out in the real world. So as I say I think Mr Hide is right to oppose the bill if that is what he thinks we are doing. 
I am not entirely convinced though that that is all we are doing because I think there are some benefits to this legislation. It is predicated on the assumption that we all oppose spam—and of course we do. I think we are pretty familiar with our in-boxes filling up with enormous amounts of all kinds of stuff that we certainly do not want to see so we are as aware of that here as anyone. I think we do all agree that we need to try to do something about it if we are able to. 
I would not go quite so far as Mr Auchinvole who talked about the right to control our own mail regardless of the media. I am not sure that such a right has actually ever existed. If it did then I certainly would be making sure I did not get speeding tickets and bills through my mail but I do not have that ability. We are always going to receive unsolicited mail of some kind so I think we have to have some perspective on how we look at it. 
It is important to see whether there are things we can do about what is clearly a growing and significant problem that is getting out of control all around the world. The Greens are supporting this legislation as a brave attempt to try to grapple with the problem. Obviously I think we are limited in what we can do in this Parliament to address the problem and this bill is probably about as much as we can do for the meantime. 
Of course the reality is that New Zealand is a minor contributor to spam internationally. We are not seeing enormous amounts coming out of this country and what we can do will be limited. But having said that I do not think that means we should not try to do anything to address the spam that does originate in this country. I take as an analogy the whole issue around climate change where we are told that New Zealand is a small contributor to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions and therefore maybe it is not worth our doing anything. But we know that if we are to get international solidarity and if we are to work at a global level to reduce global problems then we all have to play a part. These agreements work only if we are all willing to participate as far as we can to address the issue. 
The other thing is that like climate change it is also a question of moral authority. It is hard for us to go to international forums and make the statement: “Well they should be doing something.” about countries where perhaps their contribution to the spam problem is more significant if we are unwilling to do anything at all in our own jurisdiction. So I think those are strong reasons why we have to see what we can do to address spam in this country. 
The other issue is that we may become a haven for spam. The reality is that one does not need to relocate huge numbers of people or equipment to alter where the spam is originating from. New Zealand could easily become another haven for spam if we become out of step with the international consensus. If we do not move towards regulation of spam as other countries do so then certainly we will see relocation to New Zealand and that is something that we do not want to see. So like Mr Copeland I think we have to look at a regime where we work with an international consensus as much as possible and rely on each country to enforce responsible realistic legislation within its own jurisdiction. I think this is what this legislation attempts to do. 
Having said that and having expressed support for the bill regardless of its limited ability to address the problem there are a couple of issues I would like to address that raise some concern in my mind. The first issue is that I am a little confused as to the intention of removing the exemptions or the different regime that applies to promotional material as opposed to commercial. I understand the argument. I understand the concern of the Commerce Committee that the distinction could be abused by people who are simply trying to stretch the boundary between commercial and promotional messages. I can see the real potential for uncertainty and confusion. I understand the argument about why one would want to do something about that. I guess I am really asking—and I would be interested to hear a member of the select committee express a view if the committee had a unified one—whether this was actually an intention to apply as restrictive a regime on an organisation such as Oxfam as on those who fill up our in-boxes promising greater sexual satisfaction— 
Rodney Hide 
: It works! 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I am sure Mr Hide would know because he is looking fit tanned and ready to go. But— 
Rodney Hide 
: I am going to pass it on to Mr Doug Woolerton. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: And Mr Woolerton looks like he is welcoming that! But members can continue that discussion outside the Chamber and we will continue to discuss the bill. But I think there is an argument to say that there are reasons why we might want to have a different regime applying to some of those promotional activities and in my mind at least that is an unresolved issue. I would be interested to hear from the select committee members as to what the clear intention was. 
The other issue was around clause 12 “Commercial electronic messages and promotional electronic messages must contain functional unsubscribe facility”. This clause sets out provisions around what the message must look like in order for that to work. The difficulty is that the advice we are always given is “Don’t unsubscribe to spam because that just encourages them.” That is the difficulty. If we are planning a regime that is very much dependent on this kind of unsubscribe facility I think that will create enormous difficulty confusion and mixed messages. It means that members of the public will have to be very careful about the distinction between spam that does originate in this country and spam that does not because even if that regime is realistic and even if one could make it work it clearly does not apply to anywhere else. I think that will cause enormous difficulties. 
There is one other thing that I want to touch on and that is in relation to the definition of an electronic address. An electronic address includes a telephone account an email account instant messaging etc. Clause 5 states that “an electronic message is a message sent—(a) using a telecommunications service; and (b) to an electronic address.” which clearly includes a telephone account. However the excluded messages listed in clause 1 of the schedule “Messages that are not electronic messages” are voice calls made using standard telephone service or voice-over Internet protocol or facsimiles. I am just reminded of the election campaign and Mr Hide could confirm this where one of the strategies in Epsom was to use recorded telephone messages to ring people up and solicit— 
Rodney Hide 
: It was not Epsom. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Oh not Epsom— 
Rodney Hide 
: Everywhere else but Epsom. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I thank the member. So the strategy of using recorded messages to solicit political support is not a far step to that happening for a commercial purpose. The definition of a facsimile which is an electronic message of some kind being excluded— 
Rodney Hide 
: People love them! 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: That is not the feedback I got I have to tell the member. I think there is a real anomaly here that it does not include telephone and facsimiles. It leaves an enormous loophole that we will see commercial companies exploit in the very near future if this bill passes.