Hughes Darren: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3532] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I am pleased to support the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill whose first reading debate was commenced tonight by the Associate Minister of Justice the Hon Rick Barker. Obviously the bill has a technical capability. It covers areas where there is a duty to assist and I am sure that when it goes to the Law and Order Committee it will be reported back in a way that complements the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6). 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise to represent the ACT party. We support the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill as we would proudly support any legislation to protect national security and uphold and promote law enforcement. That is why we support this bill; and that is contained in the first sentence in the preamble to the bill. But why is this Government so schizophrenic when it comes to the issues of national security and law enforcement? That is what is confusing to me.  
If the Government can introduce a bill like this and if we can talk about protecting national security let us look at the defence of this nation. What is the point of having this legislation which I have already said that ACT supports when thanks to this Government we already have a severely marginalised defence force? For instance as we speak  
Te Kaha  
is sailing off towards a potential war zone with 160 men on board and the equivalent of a popgun up front. If we live in such a benign environment as the Prime Minister asserts why do we need this legislation at all? I am sure that my colleague Keith Locke will point out some inconsistencies there and I will leave him to do that. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Yes I am coming back to the spirit of the bill and the spirit of the bill is as it states ensuring that law enforcement and national security are protected. Let us turn that statement round for a minute. If we need this bill which we do then do we live in a benign environment? Of course we do not live in a benign environment and of course we need this bill. We need to protect national security. We all agree on the need for that. In order to protect our national security we also need to support our allies—the United States Australia and Britain—and their courage in their stand against Saddam Hussein. But instead there is an inconsistency as our Prime Minister has aligned us with Continental Europe.  
As the leader of the ACT party the Hon Richard Prebble said in this House on Tuesday 11 February when has Continental Europe ever given a continental about us? Would Germany come to help us? Just look at the German Foreign Minister. I do not know whether— 
Jill Pettis 
: He’s a lovely man. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: The member says he is a lovely man. Does the member know who Joschka Fischer is? Joschka Fischer is an anti-Semite who changed his view on abolishing the State of Israel only after Entebbe. Despite the terrorist actions at the Munich Olympics in the 1970s when the Israeli competitors were killed off one by one by Arab terrorists that German Foreign Minister was still on the record as continuing to push for the destruction of the State of Israel. 
Jill Pettis 
: I don’t agree with that. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: That member does not support that. The member was obviously confused and thought I was talking about somebody else. Joschka Fischer that Foreign Minister of a country that our Prime Minister wishes to align us with was also closely aligned with another terrorist organisation in Germany called the Baader-Meinhof gang. I am sure that that member knows about the Baader-Meinhof gang and what it got up to. As one prominent American commentator asked last week in a column: “Who are you Mr Fischer? What do you support?”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I ask the member to be seated. I remind honourable colleagues of Speaker’s ruling 51/5(3) which states that: “a running commentary of interjection is out of order;”. As my predecessor always used to say interjections should be rare reasonable and relevant and if at all possible witty. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I come back to what I was talking about: the promotion of law enforcement and national security. As those members might remember I did say at the beginning of my speech that I was supporting this bill on behalf of ACT. I come back to the issue of a benign environment. Do we have one? I do not think so but the Prime Minister guided by focus groups and polling has decided that we will not help the United States.  
Prime Minister Blair might well fall on his stand as was said today but at least he stood up for a principle he believed in. As Condoleeza Rice said people all around have the right to protest. That same luxury is not afforded to the people of Iraq. I believe that if we were really serious about protecting national security we would oppose the Prime Minister’s reinforcement of her resolve not to support the United States which is the world’s only superpower prepared to stand up to rogue States. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The debate is much narrower than the area the member is covering now. I ask the member to come back to the bill. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I will focus then on the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill. I am pleased to see that there are provisions in the bill to curb the rights of the State in terms of authorising who will have the ability to intercept communications. I am also pleased to see from the bill that the Government supports compensation for the loss of property rights in terms of the introduction of it and the process that allows organisations and companies to comply with the bill. I am puzzled—and I presume it will be sorted out at the select committee—as to why there is a differential between the provision of interception capability for existing fixed and mobile voice networks to be implemented and why that is not given to the cost of upgrading networks to provide for the interception of Internet and email services. Perhaps one of the members on that side could take a call and explain that discrepancy and why the taking of property is compensated in one instance but not in another.  
I am also pleased that the Government has seen fit to protect the privacy of people who should not be affected by this bill in terms of introducing measures that do not increase the powers of the police and do not increase the powers of the Security Intelligence Service. As I said if this Government wants to have support from the ACT party more often then all it needs to do is introduce more legislation that upholds law and order promotes zero tolerance for crime and protects national security.