Mark Ron: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Mark Ron: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4395] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to make just a short call. I refer to the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 36 in the name of the Rt Hon Helen Clark which amends clause 14. Simon Power might be interested in having a look at this as well. 
Further to the concerns we have just expressed there is one other amendment that the Government is making and that is to insert after the words “a foreign organisation” the words “or a foreign person”. Clause 14 would then read: “for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident.” 
I am a little confused now because that raises a question. I will ask the Minister in the chair one more time—and I hope he is awake because I would seriously like an explanation. He has a whole bank of officials he can consult. He can get an answer and advise the Committee. I ask him whether that surely does not raise the question of how one justifies saying that a permanent resident is not a threat but a foreign person is. How can this Government—and this Government of all Governments which criticises my party up hill and down dale for targeting foreigners—right here differentiate between foreign persons and accord greater privilege to permanent residents who we know are foreign persons yet to gain New Zealand citizenship? That is how I see it. Am I wrong? 
All I am saying is that the concern from the Opposition side of the Committee is that clause 14 appears very loose. Clause 14 makes it impossible for the Government Communications Security Bureau to monitor or intercept the communications of persons who are New Zealand citizens or permanent residents. We are questioning why permanent residents should be included. Now as I look at the Supplementary Order Paper in the Rt Hon Helen Clark’s name I question it even more given that the Government is differentiating foreign persons. There is a question there and the question is this: what makes a foreigner who has gained permanent residence any less of a threat than a foreign person who has been in the country for precisely the same period of time but who has not yet been approved or given permanent residence? Surely the difference lies in a piece of paper and a tick as far as the interpretation of this bill is concerned but in terms of the individual standing before us there could be no difference. 
Am I clear or am I confusing the Minister? Would he like to ask me a couple of questions and ask me to explain myself? I would certainly like to know from the Minister why a foreign person living in New Zealand who may well have applied for permanent residence but has not yet received it is considered to be different from a person who has gained permanent residence. My argument is that there should be no reference to “permanent resident” in that clause. If the Government is going to exempt New Zealand citizens that is fine—please explain to me how we pick that up in other legislation—but I suggest to the Minister that there is a serious anomaly in the legislation and it is deserving of an explanation to the Committee. Or are we going to see more of the same bland know-nothing quiet arrogance from the working class party? Please can the Minister explain?