Dalziel Lianne: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9355] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I have been criticised a little bit in the discussion and I would like to reply briefly. I appreciate Mr Goff getting up and making some comments. It is very good that he is explaining the position. I disagree with him because he said that terrorists could be doing these things but the examples we have come up with—and we could go on and on giving different examples—are from our domestic political situation. The reality is that apart from the  
Rainbow Warrior 
 bombing in 1985 there is not a lot of terrorist activity in New Zealand. This provision in the Crimes Act has a general application including against any terrorist who might happen to threaten but its application is overwhelmingly in relation to domestic political activity. There has not been a terrorist threat against New Zealand to date that I know of. 
But there have been all kinds of threats from ordinary New Zealanders. I mentioned the threat of farmers on the so-called “fart tax”. It is good that Mr Goff brought us back to the 1981 Springbok tour protest. Certainly if we are talking about threats and not actions—and this part is about threats—there were all sorts of threats before and during that Springbok rugby tour to get involved in disruptive process. The leadership of the anti-tour movement was saying that if the Springbok team came here there would be disruptive activities the blocking of motorways etc. and that transpired. So this provision would definitely have covered the anti - Springbok tour protesters. The blocking of motorways does have a fairly significant effect as happened at that time. 
Under clause 6 one does not actually need to disrupt very much to have the result under section 298B(b) of causing major economic loss to one person—a single solitary New Zealander as long as that person is part of a commercial activity of a particular type or in a particular school or something like that. This is just about a threat— 
Stephen Franks 
: Competition does that—causes major economic loss. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Yes. So I think we have to see that this is a quite dangerous provision. I think the Minister said that protests “per se” are not being outlawed or affected by this which is a sort of synonym for the “by itself” provision in section 307A(2) in clause 7. In the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on both this bill and the Terrorism Suppression Bill which became an Act it was made quite clear repeatedly by officials and submitters that “by itself” did not mean that if one was on a protest or in a strike and personally did the things that are prescribed in the legislation one would not be as liable as anyone else; all that that provision is trying to say is that we are not aiming to get at protests or strikes as a whole but if strikers or protesters happened to threaten to do something that would significantly disrupt a commercial institution and cause major economic loss to one person then they can be up for 7 years in jail. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The court is hardly likely to rule in that way. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: The Minister can say that but it has to be based on what the law says. At the present time sure we have a more tolerant climate politically and judicially but if there is a situation—and I again go back to the 1981 Springbok tour—where passions are raised and people on different sides are saying that those on the other side are bringing the country to ruin and all the rest of it all the things that Muldoon threw around then one might get a situation where people are given heavy sentences for just doing a political protest in a situation of great dissent and great concern. In that case a racist rugby team was being brought to New Zealand and people felt very upset about it not only because of what was happening in South Africa but because of the impact on race relations in New Zealand.