Mapp Wayne: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12793] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 It is extraordinary to hear Mr Hone Harawira is it not? He actually took an oath in this Parliament 2 years ago to uphold the laws of New Zealand. What did he say today? He said that he does not believe in the rule of law. What does he believe in—the rule of anarchy? That is effectively what he is justifying today. Surely one of the fundamental duties of a member of Parliament is to uphold the rule of law because the alternative does not bear thinking about. 
I want to turn directly to the provisions of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill that relate to committing a terrorist act. The Law Society for instance said that that should not be in the legislation. It said that all these events are ordinary crimes and of course that is right. They are crimes. But what makes an ordinary crime a terrorist act? It is defined in the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002—as my colleague John Hayes referred to—by a threefold test. It is a high test; each one of the tests must be satisfied. There must be an ideological motivation a religious motivation or a political motivation. There must be the intention to cause death injury or serious risk to the health and safety of the population. Those must be the intentions and that is stated in the 2002 legislation.The purpose must be to induce terror or unduly compel or force a Government to do or abstain from doing something. Those are high tests and I acknowledge that. There must be a specific intention— 
Keith Locke 
: There’s no need— 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Read the Act Mr Locke. 
Keith Locke 
: The Act doesn’t require the actual intention to cause harm— 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Yes it does. It actually says that in the Act. Those are high tests. 
I want to draw attention to something else because a lot of ignorance has been shown by Mr Locke. To avoid doubt I say any person who is engaged in protest advocacy strikes lockouts etc. does not commit one of those acts. Exercising the right of protest—and I do appreciate that some protests involve breaches of the law minor crimes and so forth—does not constitute a terrorist act because the threshold is so high. Terrorism is a grave matter and the legislation makes that plain and transparent on the face of it. That is why it is actually right for this Parliament to legislate a special sanction for committing an act of terrorism—a sentence of up to life imprisonment—because it is different from an ordinary crime. 
Because committing a terrorist act is different from committing an ordinary crime of course it is right that Government agencies have very high duties when invoking this legislation. I understand that that is the case and I guess that is the source of the discussions to date by the Maori Party and others on this point. I can understand why many of the public will ask questions about why the authorities are using this legislation. That of course is to be expected because there is such a high threshold. I would also have to say that the public has a right to know the answers within 2 years. We cannot have such a serious issue being raised and then have to wait for 2 years for the actual trial itself. 
I want to bring this point to the Maori Party: the Solicitor-General is dealing with those issues right now. That check was put in place under the Terrorism Suppression Act and it was put in very deliberately in order to ensure that the threshold is deliberately high. That Act cannot be used politically or by the police on their own initiative. The police know they have to bring these things to the Solicitor-General and that judgement will be made on them soon. Because it is going to be made soon I do ask the Maori Party to actually have a bit of patience on this matter. We will know the answers pretty soon. 
I would like to say that on an issue of this nature I personally think it is very important that justice will need to be open. I have expressed my concerns on a number of occasions about the way the courts operate in this area. I do think we need to be very very careful on an issue of this nature that justice is open because that gives confidence to the public that the issues are material and that they do not have to wait for 2 years. I would like to see the issue dealt with pretty soon and because it is in the hands of the Solicitor-General and will be dealt with very soon I do ask parties like the Maori Party and perhaps particularly its more inflammatory member Mr Hone Harawira who apparently does not understand his obligation to uphold the rule of law a fundamental duty of any member of Parliament surely more than that of anyone else in the country— 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Te Ururoa Flavell explained right at the beginning that the Maori Party stands by the rule of law and is opposed to terrorism. That member should stop talking rubbish. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I remind members that there is to be silence when I am ruling on points of order. I say to the member that this is a Committee debate and certainly those two points have been raised. But the member is not restricted in the same way that he would be in the readings of a bill. There is time and the opportunity to answer things that are said in Committee. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: It was noteworthy was it not that Dr Pita Sharples referred to Te Ururoa Flavell. I of course was not referring to him; I was referring to his colleague Hone Harawira. I only assume that he did not hear Mr Harawira’s speech because that is precisely what he said. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member asked for a second call so I ask him to please come back to the point. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I was just answering the member’s point. 
I want to conclude on this point because I said I would finish briefly. It is right that we have a specific crime relating to committing a terrorist act. The reason it is right is that terrorism affects fundamentally the stability of society. It is also right that the threshold for defining such a crime is very high. This Parliament in 2002 went to a great deal of trouble to ensure there was a high threshold. I would like some of the parties to acknowledge that reality. Clearly when Government authorities use the powers given by the legislation they ultimately do have to account for using them. I want to conclude by saying to the Maori Party that its members will know the answers pretty soon because the Solicitor-General is dealing with the issue right now. Thank you Madam Chair.