Barnett Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Barnett Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20441] 
5.  
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What changes to legislation did the Government initiate to deal more effectively with people who issue hoax threats which can be economically damaging to this country? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 In 2003 the Government passed counter-terrorism legislation that created among other things new offences relating to the use of biological organisms to cause sickness in animals. It made the deliberate contamination of food and infection of animals with diseases such as foot-and-mouth serious criminal offences with a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. It also made it a criminal offence to threaten or falsely communicate harm of that nature—in other words to make hoax threats—with a maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment. 
Tim Barnett 
: What were the previous penalties for such offences? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The previous maximum penalty for the offence of releasing unwanted organisms under the Biosecurity Act was 5 years’ imprisonment so the penalty for that has been doubled. For hoax threats the previous maximum penalty under section 24 of the Summary Offences Act was a mere 3 months’ imprisonment which clearly was grossly inadequate. The new penalties for hoax threats represent a 28-fold increase reflecting the serious consequences of such threats such as we are seeing at the present time. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister recall in overseeing the passage of the counter-terrorism legislation whether that legislation received unanimous support; if it did not does he recall which party did not support it because it objected to the heavy penalties for people threatening to engage in forms of protest action that would cause major economic loss? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I recall that that legislation went through with the overwhelming support of the House but was voted against by the Green Party. 
Tariana Turia 
: How does the Minister respond to a comment made to me that this situation could be a contrived hoax to create hysteria and fear so that the Government can take a patsy question today to describe to the country how prepared and alert it is to deal with such a critical issue? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I regard that suggestion made by the member as being frankly ludicrous. Anybody who considers the potential $10 billion loss that this country could face including the loss of thousands of jobs knows that a hoax of this nature is incredibly damaging and must be taken seriously. 
Tim Barnett 
: Has he seen any reports that this threat is likely to be a hoax and that the Government therefore should have covered it up? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes astonishingly I have seen a statement to that effect. I have it in my hand. It is a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition Don Brash. I have seen another statement made by Annabel Young the former National MP and current Chief Executive of Federated Farmers who rubbishes Dr Brash’s suggestion saying that we still need to tell everybody because otherwise we are in a kind of Chernobyl situation where people never trust us again. We cannot treat a hoax any differently from a real thing until we know that it is a hoax. Fortunately every responsible authority has repudiated the ridiculous suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If this were such a serious issue why did the Prime Minister not come to the House today and make a ministerial statement instead of jacking up patsy questions in question time to gain some cheap political points? This House should not be treated in such a scrappy manner and I would request the Government now to seek leave which we will grant for a ministerial statement. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member but that was not a point of order. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I seek the leave of the House to table two documents. The first document is a statement made by Dr Don Brash which I have referred to previously. The second document is a statement made by Annabel Young which I have also referred to. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.