Mark Ron: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading 
Mark Ron: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12269] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I think I sound like a stuck record. Given the summary that the Associate Minister of Justice so robotically read out at a thousand miles an hour I do not think there is any sense in rotary hoeing the same paddock again. I think we pretty much know what the bill intends. But I will touch on a couple of headings. 
Although my name does not appear amongst the members of the Law and Order Committee listed in its report I did sit in on many of the submissions and on the consideration of this bill as a result of my interest in matters of defence and security. The reasons for the bill have been quite clearly put and reinforced by Simon Power. I think one of the things the bill does make very clear is who a network operator is who a service provider is what is “duty to assist” and what does having interception capability mean. The bill highlights recent overseas legislation passed by the Australian Commonwealth in 1997 and by the United Kingdom—the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. 
The report from the select committee is worth looking at because it states that the committee received four outside submissions three of which were opposed. The opposition to this bill came from people who believe that it is “an overreaction to the terrorist events of 11 September 2001 and an intrusion into personal privacy.” I will come back to that. 
A number of things were dealt with by the select committee and most interesting was the controversy that arose out of the original estimated cost to telecommunications companies—the cost that the companies themselves are to bear as a result of this legislation being enacted. It was interesting that the telecommunications companies questioned the $12 million cost—a figure arrived at by the Government—and quoted a much larger figure of $43576000 as being the base cost for compliance. After some discussions and the amendments to the bill which have seen some limitations it is interesting to note that the costs are back down to around the $10 million to $13 million range. 
It is interesting to note also that this bill was looked at by not just the Law and Order Committee; I understand that it was looked at by the Commerce Committee and also by the Regulations Review Committee. So the scrutiny of this bill was most definitely wide reaching. 
What struck me as very interesting were some of the comments made about the bill by people who quite clearly are opposed to it and I have absolutely no doubt that the Green Party will want to reinforce those views. I would like to raise the comments that have been made that do give me cause for concern. 
Comments made by the Anti-Bases Campaign state in part: “And for what good reason are our privacy protections being progressively eroded and our private communications being open to intelligence agencies with no effective oversight or accountability?”. I would ask every member of this House to read this legislation carefully and see where the oversight and accountability lie because those words are lies. “No convincing case has yet been made by Government as to why so much new intrusive power must be vested in the police and intelligence agencies. The Anti-Bases Campaign believes that the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill and the several recent pieces of legislation related to it are overreactions to the terrorist events of September 11 in the United States and are not driven by genuine and supportable law enforcement needs in New Zealand.” 
Well I find absolutely astounding that people who have the freedom and liberty to write those views and to express them publicly internationally are the very last people on this whole planet who will ever put on a uniform ever pick up a firearm ever swear allegiance to the Crown in this country and ever fight to defend the right to express such nonsensical views. The absolutely astounding irony is that this wall around us is bedecked with memorials to men who have given their lives to allow people to say such things and we all know that the very people who say those things would never ever do likewise. In fact what is even more ironic is that I have never heard the Anti-Bases Campaign people or the people who are members of such an organisation go on about the KGB. The huge irony is that many of those people were members of the Communist Party the party renowned for giving us Stalin Lenin and the KGB. So where were their cries of intrusion into privacy in those years? Where was Mr Locke? Was he out there campaigning against the KGB for its intrusion into the privacy of the life of the average Soviet person? Not on your nelly was he! He was a member of the party advocating and supporting such things. [ 
Interruption 
] It had better be legitimate. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member was talking about the Communist Party and said I was a member of the Communist Party. I have never been a member of the Communist Party. 
RON MARK 
: Oh a Russian Pol Pot—I am sorry. But the member’s father was. Maybe I got it wrong; maybe I have the wrong Locke. But the point is—[ 
Interruption 
] Was that Labour member over there a member of the Communist Party as well? 
Jill Pettis 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In that interchange that just went on reference was made by Mr Mark to connections with Pol Pot. That has been ruled out repeatedly in this House and I would say that a mercenary attitude towards things is not applicable. Does the member know what I mean by “mercenary”? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No we will not get into that. I thank the member for pointing that out. No references to Pol Pot please Mr Mark. 
RON MARK 
: I will not refer to any newspaper article I have ever read. 
Jill Pettis 
: A very mercenary attitude. 
RON MARK 
: Absolutely there is nothing wrong with a good mercenary. I do not know what that has to do with anything on this planet. I do not know what the member means. I do not know whether it is meant to be an insult but if she pulls out the Collins dictionary she will find that it is not. I do not know why the chief Government whip is defending the view of a party that is voting against this very legislation. [ 
Interruption 
] All the reds are out from under their beds! 
Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like it clarified for the record that I have never been a member of the Communist Party. I have been a proud member of this great Labour Party all my life. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order. 
RON MARK 
: That is not a point of order at all and the member jolly well knows it If the member wants to break up my speech to make a personal statement then she should stand up to make a personal statement. I hope that none of that has come off my time. The member is being paid $100000 a year to do better than that. That is pathetic. She should hand back a day’s pay. 
The point is that I take great offence. Many of my fathers uncles and relatives from one end of this country to the other— 
Jill Pettis 
: How many fathers have you got? 
RON MARK 
: I have five fathers. In fact I have six. I have a natural father and five foster-fathers for the information of that ignorant member over there who has not read my bio. 
Jill Pettis 
: Why would I? 
RON MARK 
: At least my father is not a parrot. I really have got the reds out from under their beds! I make the point that there was a time when Mr Muldoon ran some advertisements about dancing Cossacks and was lambasted from one end of the country to the other. Much comment was made about the fear of reds under the beds. I put this to members: today we have a group of people who see Feds under the beds! Wherever they go they think the Feds or the police or spies are watching them. I actually think they have other things on their minds like terrorism. Yesterday 700 police in the UK busted up a terrorist ring found half a tonne of high explosives and arrested a whole bunch of Pakistani Brits. That is like what is happening in Manila in Bali in Baghdad and all over the world. They are dealing with the real security threats to the very lives of the people here who object against their doing that. I just hope that one day some time very soon we do not face a terrorism act in this country and that no member of the Greens has a family member who is caught up in that carnage. That will be the day that those people finally appreciate and understand the work that the New Zealand Police and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and all of its agents including Defence Force personnel of this country have to perform thankless though some people may be for the duties they carry out.