Franks Stephen: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9352] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party to take the unusual step of supporting Mr Keith Locke’s warnings about these provisions in Part 1. I believe that this has been drafted hastily. It is drafted as a response to this Government’s desire to subordinate New Zealand to the United Nations and to look respectable. When we renege on defence and other contracts we have to do something to suck up to the Australians and to the Americans. In this case sadly it is by using the worthy cause of counter-terrorism to stick new provisions into our law that may well one day be misused for purposes that the people in this Parliament would never have dreamt of. 
Look at new section 307A to be inserted by clause 7 which is the new offence of threat of harm to people or property. This amendment has been further amended by recommendation of the select committee which I am sure thought it was doing the job that was necessary of making sure this law did not overreach. These kinds of provisions often come from countries that have none of our respect for law and order indeed and for the rights of individuals and for the importance of making sure that people are guilty before they are convicted. In this clause there is a 7-year sentence for threatening to do something that might have a result of creating a risk to the health of one or more people. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: No there are two stages. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Hang on. There are two stages as Mr Mapp quite correctly points out but taking it bit by bit— 
Dianne Yates 
: Dr Mapp. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Sorry Dr Mapp—yes Dr Professor Mapp! A threat—“creating a risk to the health of one or more people”. Think about that risk. A risk to the health of one person comes through promoting smoking. It comes through a myriad of activities that might be much better intentioned than promoting smoking. There is a risk to the health of one person if for example someone is opposed to a particular kind of therapy that he or she thinks harms many but helps one or a few people. 
Then we look at the other element required for this offence. It causes “a significant disruption of one or more of the following things … commercial activity in New Zealand.” I say to Dr Mapp let us think about for example those who oppose genetic modification. It could easily be that they are hostile to a drug firm that uses or produces a medicine with GM and want that medicine withdrawn because of their fears about the effect of the technology on a whole range of values in New Zealand. It could be Maori objecting to it because they believe that it is a fundamental problem simply to interfere with the foetus. The result could well be harm to one or more people. This provision does not have an exception for proper purpose or good faith or political debate. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Yes it does. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Where is it? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Section 5(2) 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: That relates only to strikes and lockouts. Typically this Labour Government has said that if one is in protest advocacy or dissent that does not by itself imply the offence. The main provision simply says that there are three elements: a threat adverse effect to the health of one or more people and disruption to someone’s commercial activity or a sector’s commercial activity. All of those could be caused in the scenario I have pictured. I would say coming to it cold with no more than an hour or two to look at it if we can think of one scenario in that situation it should be telling this Parliament that this Committee stage in the House should be used to take a much greater care about the potential misuse of this provision. This could well be misused in private prosecutions. This could cause a great deal of misery to New Zealanders who are acting in perfect good faith. 
I mention also in Part 1 the provisions relating to causing disease or sickness in animals. I mentioned that the new section 298A would be capable of being used by antagonists to the introduction of a possum disease if they feared that that possum disease might also spread for example to commercial rabbits or poultry. It is perfectly capable of that use.