Locke Keith: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Locke Keith: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9351] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I would like to reply to some of the points that my colleague Wayne Mapp has raised. He is trying to make out I think unsuccessfully that the threats of action have to be on some huge scale affecting everything in order to be covered by this provision. But when we look through the provision it talks about a threat to cause significant disruption to things like a board of trustees of a school or commercial activities of a particular type etc. Obviously we are not talking about something affecting a whole society; we are talking about threats of action that might affect just one entity one farmer or whatever. That is clear in section 307A(1B) in clause 7 where the results have to be of four types. One result is “causing major economic loss to one or more persons”. Therefore causing major economic loss to one person would qualify. 
Another result is “causing major damage to the national economy”. That is a very broad provision but how does one define that? It requires subjective political determination. Some people would argue that Monsanto even though it has declined as a company of late would potentially cause major damage to the national economy of New Zealand with its GE foods. From another viewpoint others would say that people who threaten to pull out GE crops are causing major damage to the national economy. It depends on where one is coming from. 
The examples I gave in my speech first time around are arguments that members might say are the kinds of examples the Greens would give about GE or the Maori debate over the foreshore and how they might affect marine farming. But take the example of farmers—and this is a recent example—threatening to block roads in response to the “fart tax”. That is an action; a threat. Under this provision people need only to threaten; they do not need to carry it through. That is what farmers did; they threatened to block roads because of the “fart tax”. Their action would come under this provision. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Come on! It would not. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: That is real. The member may not like it but that is the problem because this is a very broad provision. The result could be determined by political bias. 
I want to finish by explaining my amendment to omit clause 8 because that clause could allow for fishing expeditions by the police. The interception warrant under this provision can be taken out for a simple theft charge when the police suspect a person is guilty of theft and then a fishing expedition can take place and the person can be had up on a misuse of drugs charge or some other charge. This provision tends to undermine what has happened in the courts to date whereby judges are a bit careful about evidence and how it is gathered. To allow interception warrants to be granted on one little thing and then used for a whole wide range of offences can lead to abuse if the police force did get a little bit out of control and started getting a little biased against certain people and went on these fishing expeditions. 
So it is true as with any provision that upholds our civil liberties that one might say some criminals are getting away with it because the police got this warrant out on a theft charge and then they caught somebody on this other offence while using the interception device and so that is good. But if we want to make sure that the police are not taking out interception warrant after interception warrant and misusing their powers in this way then we have to restrict what they can do more specifically to the purposes of the warrant and not allow for fishing expeditions. 
That is how the law has operated up to date—with a balance between civil liberties and people not being subject to excessive surveillance on the one hand and on the other hand the police being able to do sufficient to catch most criminals in our society by in some cases using interception warrants. I think that both of these amendments are very important. I want to go back and talk about an amendment I raised at the start.