Brownlee Gerry: Counter-Terrorism Bill — First Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Counter-Terrorism Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4632] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 The National Party supports this bill progressing to the select committee for further consideration. It is with a degree of sadness that we do so. The need in New Zealand for a bill like this tells us that society as we have known it has definitely changed and no New Zealander should be comfortable with that. 
We have had some very good speeches in the House this morning. In particular I refer to the speech of my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp and to the very fine speech from the Hon Richard Prebble. I found myself agreeing with his speech in great substance. I also would like to make a few comments about the speech that we heard previously from Keith Locke of the Green Party. One of the things that I find amusing about the Greens’ position is that at times it seems to be exceptionally libertarian. The point the Greens do not understand is that every time someone commits an illegal act threatens someone or does something to disrupt society it causes a place like Parliament to enact a law to counter that. What we then see on each occasion is a shortening shrinking or closing up of the liberty that we as citizens all experience and that is part of the sadness I have in seeing this bill come before the House. 
Georgina Beyer from the other side decided to give us a reading of the bill rather than offer any particular thoughts on it. However in so doing she highlighted some of the extraordinary situations that do exist in New Zealand. For example it would appear that right now there is no law against infecting an animal with a disease and sending that animal out into the community presumably to spread that disease. For example anthrax could be spread through the community by infecting dogs. Rabies is another example of a disease that could be spread through the community by infecting dogs. We are told in the preamble that right now that is not illegal. It seems to me only sensible that there should be some restriction on people doing that sort of thing. The next part says that it would appear that it is not illegal at the moment to contaminate food crops water or other products intended for human consumption. That seems also somewhat awry and is certainly something that we do need to correct and I am pleased that this bill does so. 
I want to tell the House about a small incident that happened in my own Christchurch electorate where householders who turned on their taps were able to smell kerosene in their water. That caused a degree of angst and upset. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: What’s that got to do with the bill? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The slow member from the West Coast asks what that has to do with the bill. I simply say to him to stay with it keep his eyes open and listen. I know he had a late night. 
It is not a silly thing: people in my electorate recently experienced contamination of their water supply. When the investigations were done it was discovered that a diesel pump had been serviced in the pump station a small amount of diesel had spilled on the floor and there had been some seepage through a very fine fissure in the concrete floor above the holding tank. The alarming thing about that is that it shows how very easy it would be for someone to put some very nasty stuff into water supplies throughout this country and we should have legislation that stops that. As Mr Locke suggested even if some of the provisions of this bill do not deal directly with terrorism that would have to be to say the least a seditious act—if not a terrorist act by itself—and we should have that cover inside the law. The problem we have with bills like this is that it is very hard to define what terrorism is. If it were easy to define what a terrorist was we would not have to put up with the sort of nonsense that the Greens put in front of us suggesting that all sorts of liberties are being curtailed because of a bill like this. 
I now turn to some of the other benefits claimed for the bill particularly the one that suggests that by being seen to cooperate fully in global attempts to combat terrorism New Zealand will be able to maintain its international reputation. At the present time we are seeing from the Government a complete obfuscation of the role that New Zealand should be playing in the Middle East. In international terms I think the Prime Minister has let New Zealand down with some of her recent outbursts described variously today as “ill-considered” or “smart alec”. For a bill like this to come before the House claiming that it is about New Zealand maintaining its obligations although we have a Prime Minister who gets us out of them at every opportunity certainly seems to me—we are not allowed to use the word in the House and I will not—to be presenting a view in one place that is ignored in another. 
I conclude my remarks this morning by simply saying that the National Party supports this bill. We do so because society has changed and New Zealanders are at risk. One final point I want to make in which I am in total agreement with Richard Prebble is that it seems sad also that we are able to put a bill like this in front of Parliament that deals with a problem that might or might not exist but a real problem like gangs in New Zealand that—as Richard Prebble quite rightly said—does cause a lot of harm in society seems to escape the legislative net quite easily. 
On that note I simply say that National looks forward to the select committee process and it will be supporting the passage of this bill.