Mapp Wayne: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9366] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Part 3 of this legislation perhaps caused the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee the most difficulty. The reason—as has been explained in the second reading speeches and in other speeches—is that this bill goes much broader than just terrorism offences. The three powers relating to the interception of private communications the use of tracking devices and the requiring of people with knowledge of computer systems to assist with access to them relate not just to terrorist offences but to other offences as well. 
Mr Locke would have one believe that those powers relate to virtually all offences. I say that that is not correct and he would need only to look at clause 26 to see that it is not the case. The provisions relate specifically to serious violent offences. Many of those offences—as no doubt the Minister will say shortly—relate to terrorism but they are not related only to terrorism. They relate to other criminal and drug offences of a serious kind including the full range of cannabis offences. So the term “specified offence” is not the broad category that Mr Locke would have us believe. It applies to the serious end of offences. That is why National after carefully considering the issues decided it should support those provisions. In the fight against crime and particularly against serious crime the police obviously have to have the appropriate powers. That does not apply just to terrorist offences but also to other serious crimes. 
National’s concern related to introducing those general powers through a Counter-Terrorism Bill. We believed initially that it would be better to split the bill into two parts and refer the general provisions to the Justice and Electoral Committee or possibly to the Law and Order Committee. The Minister and his officials made submissions to the select committee as to why that could not be the case. The essence of the argument turned on the fact that these powers were necessary now to deal with terrorist offences and the fact that other offences were included was a matter the select committee had to be able to take into account. The Minister’s staff was sufficiently flattering to suggest that the select committee amongst its personnel had sufficient expertise to be able to make a fair and proper assessment of the provisions. Indeed on either side of the table at the select committee there were people skilled in legal issues who were able to make those determinations. So the argument was made and was accepted by the Opposition and therefore we are supporting those provisions. 
However I would re-state to the Minister our concerns about the titles of bills so that people are properly informed as to the full extent of bills. I would not like to see a bill presented to Parliament again under the label of “counter-terrorism” or under some such other label—perhaps on a completely different issue for that matter—that covered not just the things that the title obviously implied but also much broader issues. We would like to think as a select committee—and we did make reference to this in our report—that the Government has taken that particular issue on board. 
I want to close by saying that Mr Locke once again grossly overstated his case. It is one of those situations where he has produced somewhat far-fetched scenarios cast doubt on the general integrity of our democratic society and the institutions therein—Parliament the judges and the police—and would have us believe that we live in some sort of totalitarian State or at least if we do not live in a totalitarian State then all the machinery is there and the agencies of State are just waiting to seize the opportunity to grossly infringe the liberty of New Zealanders. I say that ultimately the sense of liberty of a people does not depend on the law but depends on the hearts of the people.