Mark Ron: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mark Ron: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12788] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I actually was not going to take a call because quite frankly for New Zealand First this is a pretty simple bill; we just need to pass it and get on with business. But some of the comments that have been made deserve a response. To those members who would say that this is not Istanbul and that the types of acts that Mr Hayes so clearly speaks of will not happen and will never happen in New Zealand and therefore we do not need such legislation as this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill I would say that there was a time when people would have laughed out loud and ridiculed anyone who suggested that it was possible that one day agents from a friendly country—France which is a country in whose soil thousands of our Defence Force personnel lie buried having given their lives defending the freedom of that nation; Maori and Pakeha side by side—would come to New Zealand in a clandestine covert operation supported and backed up 100 percent by the Government the defence force and the intelligence agencies of France and would blow up a ship moored in our harbour. People would have laughed at that suggestion. 
Hone Harawira 
: And then released by the New Zealand Government. 
RON MARK 
: Now the member Hone Harawira is admitting that he knows such an act happened yet the very same member is sitting here saying that these things do not happen. I would tell Mr Harawira that he should make up his mind. 
Hone Harawira 
: Point of order. At no time did I say that these things do not happen in this country— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I would just remind members that when they stand and call for a point of order I call their name then. 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. My point of order was that at no time did I say that those activities had never happened here. I simply pointed out that this was not Istanbul. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is not a point of order to correct something that a member has said; it is a debating point. We would go on forever with points of order if we did that. 
RON MARK 
: There is the point. The guy has been here long enough. He draws $110000 a year to know the rules of this House and he cannot even raise a point of order because he is embarrassed by the imputation of the comment that he made and he seeks to divert members from it. I would simply say to that member that his imputation was— 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I will ask the member to come back to the bill. 
RON MARK 
: The bill seeks to deal with those acts and anyone in this Chamber who says that those acts are not possible is ignoring history. That is why we move on such legislation as this bill. Let me clarify something that really happened in New Zealand. This is a quote. This was said in New Zealand by a New Zealander: “When I first saw the planes fly into the towers I jumped for joy. I was so happy that at long last capitalism was under attack.” That might sound like fantasy or like the rantings of a lunatic who got some sort of perverse pleasure out of seeing thousands of people killed in the terrorist attacks on the twin towers but it was from a speech given by Annette Sykes to the Green Party at an anti-war meeting held in Rotorua on 9 November 2001. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. That is a point of misrepresentation. I was at that particular meeting. It was not a Green Party meeting and I think the member has his quote wrong as well. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will please be seated. Misrepresentation is to the person and it was not to do with the person. 
RON MARK 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. You have had three points of order that are not points of order Madam Chairperson and they have been raised deliberately to break up my speech. I ask for the protection of the Chair from spurious points of order from people who do not know the Standing Orders. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite correct and I would just remind members that this is a Committee debate which is really about the bill. If members stick to the bill and to the clauses in the bill then there will be no problem. 
RON MARK 
: It is in speaking to the bill that members have made comments in the debate and it gives people the opportunity to comment on those points that have been allowed to be made in the debate. It probably would be helpful if people followed the Chair’s guidance but that was a statement. How are we in New Zealand First meant to view this bill? I will seek leave to table this document but should we in New Zealand First view it in the light of the fact that people make statements such as that one? New Zealand First looks at this bill with possibly a different view from that of some other members who have spoken in this Chamber and who believe that some things are not possible. We believe that they are. We could take for example another statement made by a member of Parliament who said: “If they tried that sort of [expletive] over here the boys would be in the streets with guns and I would be with them.” That was said by a member of Parliament—a member of this House. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Which one? 
RON MARK 
: That was actually said by Hone Harawira in respect of the activities of the Howard Government in the Aboriginal territories. Statements like that convince New Zealand First that— 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I simply did not make those statements at all. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry but it is a debating point. I would remind the member of what I said on the previous point of order. I would ask the member to be careful on points of order. 
RON MARK 
: Thank you Madam Chairperson— 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. At what juncture do I raise an issue when I think that somebody here has quoted something that they have said I have said when in fact I have not said it? Is it a point of misrepresentation perhaps Madam Chairperson? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The point is that most of these are debating points. The member will have a chance to speak and he can speak to those points in his subsequent speech. 
RON MARK 
: New Zealand First is one party that has seriously stood for freedom of speech and has tried its best to uphold those principles of civil liberty that this House and all parties I am convinced are committed to. Therefore it takes seriously its role in deciding whether it will support this legislation. We have decided to support this legislation because we are absolutely convinced of the seriousness of the threat that pervades us. 
I will finish by saying this. Possibly the greatest threat to civil liberties to civilisation and to the democratic societies that we know is the absolute blind belief that there is no threat. We have witnessed in earlier times people like Mr Chamberlain a certain Prime Minister of Great Britain talking about “peace in our time” and within months he was locked in one of the bloodiest wars the world had ever known and the tyrant Adolf Hitler was able to rampage across the globe across the planet inflicting casualties upon all humanity. Those casualties have never since been repeated because there exist in our civil communities within free democratic countries those people who are brave enough to stand up and put stakes in the sand when they believe that such actions are absolutely necessary. 
I would also note how ironic it is that the party in this House that purports to represent all of Maori—which it does not; it represents a certain clique of Maoridom—should choose to denigrate and overlook the massive sacrifice made by Maori men and women in the First World War in the Second World War in Malaya in Viet Nam in Indonesia in the second Malaya war and to this day around the world in peacekeeping operations. Why do Maori men and women do that? They do that because they want to be assured that their grandchildren their mokopuna will grow up in a free country in a democratic country where people have the liberty to stand up and say whatever they want to say no matter how stupid it may be without advocating violence and without supporting terrorism.  
 It has also become a hallmark of the House that those politicians who typically stand and so much espouse freedom fighters are the last to step forward to fight for freedom. They are the last to do that but they act big and great when talking into a megaphone or microphone or taking advantage of the 10-second or 20-second sound bites on the hustings when championing their political cause. Maybe those people should stand up in the Chamber and explain what they mean by “sovereignty” “independence” or “tino rangatiratanga” and explain how much liberty and freedom other New Zealanders will have to give up so that others can exercise the political power they seek for their own personal gain. 
Terrorism knows no bounds. Terrorism is a threat to everybody’s safety—to all communities. It is a threat to the foundation of democracy which we live by and which we have the joy and pleasure of being able to experience and exercise. Sometimes that calls for legislation that might be described as Draconian but everybody has a right to criticise critique and seek to amend it. Sometimes it calls for legislation that might be seen to be authoritarian. But the wonderful thing about this country of ours is that we are a free nation we are a democratic nation and we give freedom of speech to people who do not agree with us. Right now they are in a minority and thank God for that.