Mapp Wayne: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9350] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Why is Mr Locke wrong? Because he is wrong. His error starts when he ignores how this section is constructed. People would have to do two things in fact not one. Their actions have to intend the effect of one of these offences: they have to affect the civilian population of New Zealand not just one person but the entire population or a large chunk thereof; and they have to do something that would threaten an infrastructure facility—something pretty fundamental. The next thing mentioned in the section is the civil administration of the country and finally the commercial activity. These are global concepts—actions cannot be narrowly focused. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Prior to the dinner break I was explaining why I believe that Mr Locke is wrong and I have taken this call because the meaning of new section 307A inserted by clause 7 is an important point. 
In essence two things are required. Firstly one has to have an “effect” and prior to the dinner break I listed the effects. They are things of widespread significance to New Zealand—that is affecting our civilian population the infrastructure facility civil administration or commercial activity. These are not individual activities in my view. They are something of general effect. That is how the words will be interpreted. That is the first test that has to be satisfied—namely an effect. In addition a “result” has to be intended. They are: creating a risk to the health of one or more people—admittedly that is narrower in the sense of numbers; causing major property damage; causing major economic loss to one or more persons; and causing major damage to the national economy of New Zealand. The fact is that those are accumulative requirements—the widespread effect leading to the result—both of which must be in the contemplation of the person. It is those two things together that would cause the activity to be caught by section 307A. 
Then on top of that as Mr Locke noted earlier there is the avoidance provision. So those things are not caught if they are derived from a strike lockout industrial action advocacy dissent etc. It is not a complete exemption. Mr Locke has put up a Supplementary Order Paper that would have those as a complete exemption. I believe he is also wrong there. What if the intended outcome of the protest or dissent were this widespread effect followed with the intended result? Surely one could not be supporting that kind of dissent. After all one might even argue that Hamas would otherwise be exempted. Yet they conduct terrorist activities on a daily basis which have these causes these effects and these results. So Mr Locke perhaps unwittingly perhaps not is almost advocating terrorism. It is extraordinary that he would do that and I cannot believe that he would deliberately do that. Even he I believe would not deliberately do that. But that is nevertheless a necessary consequence of his reasoning. 
Because the Government has taken only one call so far on this very important legislation I believe it is incumbent on me to explain the purposes in detail. This legislation should have the widespread support of the House and if the Government fails in its duty to explain the purposes in detail not just in a second reading speech but by analysis of the critical clauses—and certainly new section 307A is in that category—then it behoves the Opposition to undertake that duty. These are important issues.