Franks Stephen: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9354] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I appreciate the Minister taking the call to explain the reasons why this is important why it is necessary legislation and what the intent is. There is no concern from the ACT party about the intent or the need for law in the areas stated. Our concern is about the unintended effects Law always has unintended effects if it is not carefully drafted and if there is not a very live concern to look for unintended effects. 
Despite Mr Goff’s reference to my flippant remark about wiping out a population of mosquitoes a far better example was provided by Mr Mark for the New Zealand First party. For example the white-tailed deer population in the Blue Mountains or the population in the Hokonuis is currently under threat from a 1080 attack through most of that area. Apparently the council that is funding it—or the Animal Health Board—is not prepared to take the precaution of potentially limiting it or using baits that will not appeal to the deer population there. Whatever one may think about the rights and wrongs of the 1080 campaign it is wrong to leave unnecessarily in our criminal law a new offence that can be used or misused against people who have no criminal intent and who believe that what they are doing is proper. 
To be fair this particular clause states: “without lawful justification or reasonable excuse”. I suspect that a regional council or Environment Southland approval would be seen as a lawful justification or excuse. But what about the councillors themselves? It seems to me that they will face attempts from those who oppose a 1080 campaign to bring them within the boundaries of this; and I think that within the words it will not be too hard. Taking on board the Minister’s passionate affirmation that the Labour Government would not be attempting to punish someone for a strike a lockout or advocacy that is not the point. Subclause (2) of new clause 307A provides something of an indicator of Parliament’s intent that this provision should not be misused. However it highlights the fact that there are a range of other activities that should have been similarly mentioned to signify to the courts that the elements of the offence could well be satisfied yet there should still not be liability. 
The lawful justification or reasonable excuse will I submit be in the eye of the beholder. When passion is aroused when the drug company for example is in the gun and there is demonstrated potential harm to the health of one or more people even though there is also demonstrated benefit to far more this provision does not on its face require a balancing. For example that might have been a sensible subclause (3) to enable the court to take into account the motives and the weighing of priorities and the balancing so that even though a commercial activity is significantly disrupted and even though there is a risk to the health of one or more people it would still be justified because there is a balance. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: What about clause 2? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I say to Dr Mapp that clause 2 by itself is not a sufficient basis for inferring. I am talking not about inference but actual proof. We could have all of these things. When we have a threat to do an act that is likely to disrupt commercial activity and spread anxiety about the drug companies’ activities and we have the risk to the health of one or more people we have satisfied the elements of the offence. I believe that if this Government had been doing its work properly it should have been more alive to the risks and should have been able to come up with better-crafted exceptions.