Goff Phil: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Goff Phil: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9354] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 The provisions in this part can relate to terrorism and in fact they are aimed at dealing with serious terrorist situations that may arise. Equally they may relate to other outcomes where serious harm is caused that might not be terrorist inspired. It does not have to be terrorist inspired if people are doing significant property damage or harming the health of individuals to make that sort of protest or advocacy a crime. As Ron Mark mentioned if somebody smashed up a property in the course of a Springbok tour protest then he or she broke the law and should face the weight of the law. I say that as a person who was a Springbok tour protester. Protest is an important right in our democracy but it does not extend to the right to smash up other people’s property or harm other persons. That then becomes a criminal offence. It always has been that and always will be. 
Why have we put some of the measures in the bill? For example why have we put a 10-year offence in for causing disease or sickness in animals? I thought that would have been self-evident. We had a study done jointly by Treasury and the Reserve Bank on scenarios forecasting the effects of a limited foot and mouth disease outbreak. One of the most serious forms of terrorism or advocacy in this country could be to deliberately introduce something like bovine spongiform encephalopathy or foot-and-mouth disease. 
Ron Mark 
: Or a threat of it. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes I will come to the threat in a moment. The conservative estimate of the result of somebody doing that to our country would be a loss of around NZ$6 billion in the first year and a cumulative loss of $10 billion in the second year. When we consider the enormity of that Mr Locke should propose that we have more than a 10-year maximum penalty for somebody who would deliberately cause such chaos in New Zealand. 
I listened to Mr Franks’ examples. I think he was perhaps tongue-in-cheek but the idea that destroying a mosquito population would bring somebody within the scope of this law is patently incorrect. People have to cause a serious risk to the health or safety of an animal population and cause major damage to the national economy of New Zealand. If Mr Franks can follow through on his example and explain how wiping out the mosquitoes or the possums would cause serious damage then he might have a point. 
In relation to clause 7 which is in respect of threats or communicating information about an act that would be likely to have these particular effects clearly what we are aiming this to do is to deal with the situation that we faced in reality not so long ago with regard to the anthrax hoax. It is a very serious thing even as a hoax when people send white powder through the mail purporting that that might be anthrax; or there are the commercially disruptive effects of people saying that they have contaminated a food product on the shelves. Those are forms of terrorism and crimes. They should be subject to the full weight of the law and that is what this provision is about—with the safeguards against using those provisions simply against an action because it is advocacy protest a strike or a lockout: those things are not illegal per se. I hope such acts will never be illegal in this country. They will certainly never be illegal under this Government but when people commit acts that are designed to seriously damage our country property and people then why I ask Mr Locke should those people not face the full force of the law?