KEITH LOCKE (Green) : I move, That Government order of the day No 1 for the interrupted debate on the third reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill be postponed until 1 April 2008.

DIANNE YATES (Labour) : I wish to continue from where I left off, in discussing the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. I point out to the House that we are discussing the amendment bill; we are not discussing the substantive Act, which was the Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002. I thank those who made submissions on the amendment bill. There were 35 submissions. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee heard 14 of those submissions, and I thank the staff and all those who worked on this particular amending legislation.

However, I want to refer back to the 2002 Act and the report back to the House, because I recently heard it said on the radio that the committee that dealt with the 2002 Act was not a robust one. I point out that there was a 19-page report back to the House on that original Act. Unlike the report on the amendment bill, which has a minority view from the Green Party and a minority view from the National Party, that report had no minority view. The original substantive Act, when it came back to the House, had no minority views and no dissenting opinions. The original Act went through unanimously in its report back to the House. I just mention that in relation to some of the comments I have heard about the original Act—the substantive Act—in the media recently.

I point out that we are discussing the amendment bill, which is about financing terrorism. The bill is about the conventions around nuclear material and nuclear terrorism, and, more particularly, it is about the international aspect of the designations of United Nations - listed terrorist entities. The reason for this amendment bill is that it has to be passed by 1 December in order to deal with the large number of designations that will lapse at the end of that month. So we are dealing strictly with the amending legislation, although the debate has been robust and wide ranging.

I also point out that our select committee deals a great deal with United Nations treaties and international treaties, and the bringing of these into New Zealand law. It is very difficult to do that, and the committee goes to great lengths to examine the balance between what affects New Zealand citizens—and this is about New Zealand being an international citizen—and New Zealand sovereignty. I can say, from reading both report-backs to the House, that both select committees were robust—far from lazy—and that the reports are comprehensive, robust, and very informative.

I further point out that the select committee and members of all parties were very, very careful to make sure that on the one hand we dealt very carefully with the safety of New Zealand citizens and the security measures around that safety, and on the other hand we considered very, very carefully the preservation of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, democracy and transparency, and civil liberties. In reading the report-backs to the House, we find that those terms are mentioned in the reports, as is the consideration the committees gave to those issues and to the submissions that discussed those issues.

Nothing in these bills was treated lightly—I have heard a contrary view in some comments from the media—and the members from all parties on the committee, as I said especially in respect of the amending legislation, gave their opinions very carefully. In the amendment bill we are discussing today there were minority views from the National Party and the Green Party. So when I hear comments on the reports of the substantive Act in 2002 that the committee was lazy, I think those comments are unfounded because in the initial hearing there was a 19-page report with no minority views from any party; the report was unanimous.

Things have changed from then to now but I think we have to be very, very careful of what we say about former committees, former members of committees, and chairs of those committees. Members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee did a considerable job of work, examined the submitters carefully, and went to great pains to produce a report to the House that reflected the opinion of that committee and the various opinions within the committee. I think the report was a fair one.

In commenting as the chair of the committee on its work, I thank committee members for the work they have done, and for the consideration they gave to the issues. The issues were not considered without care and appreciation for the values of New Zealand citizens, the protection of New Zealand citizens, and the protection, as I have said, of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and civil liberties in New Zealand.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) : I want to take a brief call on the third reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, firstly, to indicate that United Future will be voting for this bill, and, secondly, to comment on some of the particular circumstances that apply to it.

It may seem somewhat perverse for the House to be proceeding with this legislation at this time, given the recent ruling by the Solicitor-General in respect of the primary Act, but if the provisions in this bill are not passed at this stage, there will be far more serious consequences for our ability to deal with international terrorism than the recent ruling of the Solicitor-General. For example, if the provisions in this bill relating to the designation of international organisations do not pass, a number of those designations will lapse, which will make those entities effectively legal operatives within New Zealand. This not only places us out of step with a number of other nations, but, more important, indicates that because we are out of step with those nations we may become a convenient haven for those prescribed organisations to establish and flourish in New Zealand. Frankly, no one would tolerate that situation or want it to happen. So it is important that this legislation is passed now to enable the rollover that is contained within it for a further 3 years to take effect, so that we do not find ourselves in a position of those designations lapsing and a far more serious situation applying.

As the member who has just spoken pointed out, a number of other provisions in the bill need to be put in place with regard to the prospect of international—and I underline that word “international”—terrorism occurring within this country. I think things have become a little confused in recent days because of the ruling of the Solicitor-General in respect of aspects of the principal Act being applied internally to organisations within New Zealand with a clearly New Zealand focus.

I go back to the point that the previous speaker, Dianne Yates, made. As a former chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee I know how thoroughly the committee on all sides worked on these matters when the review of the primary Act was undertaken during the term of the previous Parliament. I also know that in the examination that occurred of the submissions that were presented there was a considerable effort made by members of the committee to make sure that legitimate dissent, fair protest, and the sort of activity that we expect to be able to occur in a free society like New Zealand was not going to be compromised by the passage of these provisions. If anything, I think what happened is that the committee probably erred on the side of protecting those who would be involved in domestic protests, to ensure that their rights were not inhibited, rather than taking, perhaps, the stronger line that might have given the consistency that the Solicitor-General said he was seeking to no avail when making his ruling earlier in the week.

I do not regret the position that the select committee took. I think it was appropriate to take a cautious stand. I think it is equally appropriate now for there to be a wider review of the Terrorism Suppression Act to see what its application is to the domestic environment, whether amendments need to be made or other legislation altogether is required to deal with those situations that may well have a threat to our domestic security, but which are clearly not international terrorist situations in their nature or design. So I think that step is one that needs to be taken quite separately from this bill, but this bill does need to be passed at this point in time in order to give effect to provisions that have a much wider application than simply the domestic environment.

The chair of the select committee who preceded me spoke at some length about the process the select committee adopted in dealing with this bill. I will not go over that again. I concur with her that it was thorough, well organised, and proper.

I note, too, the minority reports from both the National Party and the Greens on this bill. I think the National Party minority report does raise some fair issues relating to the designation that need to be considered. I think the report from the member of the Green Party, as I said at an earlier stage, is something that—although I disagree with it—is a call to conscience that the House and the country should heed.

I think this bill is a useful step forward. I do not think it will be as controversial as those who oppose it fear. I think it is necessary to make the overall environment safer in respect of our ability to deal with international terrorism. But I do think, in light of the events of recent days, that the course of action of having the domestic situation more thoroughly reviewed by the Law Commission, and issues along the lines of how we promote national security considered, may well be a fairer way to go at this point. So I support this legislation but—

John Hayes: This House is elected to make law.

Hon PETER DUNNE: Obviously this House is elected to make law, and this House will make law, but I think having an independent review by the Law Commission, which would then come back to the Parliament as legislation and then be considered by the member’s select committee, is the appropriate way to go. I cannot see how one can oppose that course of action. That course of action really suggests that if there are errors in this law that have been determined by the Solicitor-General as making it impossible for him to act in this situation, we should at the very least take every opportunity to make sure that we get it right next time around. The member seems to be suggesting that we should not do that, that we should simply pass some sort of remedial law at this stage—

John Hayes: We should do the work.

Hon PETER DUNNE: Well, ultimately the House will do the work—that is the point. But I think we need to be guided in that by an independent review from the Law Commission, and I certainly support that occurring.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) : I begin by taking issue with one thing that my colleague the Hon Peter Dunne said about the fact that if we did not pass this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, there would be a problem with terrorist designations lapsing. I do not think that is correct, because section 35(2) of the current law allows for the High Court to extend those designations for another 3 years. So I think it is not correct that we need to be rushing off to pass this bill, and I thank my colleague Mr Keith Locke for drawing my attention to that.

I heard Mr John Hayes call out that it is Parliament’s job to make the law. Well, it is Parliament’s job to pass the law, but I do not think that Mr Hayes is putting himself up to be writing it, to be doing the analysis, to be preparing it—

John Hayes: We can cope.

RODNEY HIDE: He says he can cope, but I think that quite often for Parliament it is not bad to get the help of the officials and, indeed, of the commissions. I just want to draw Mr Hayes’ attention to what the Solicitor-General said. He said the law Parliament passed, with the help of Mr John Hayes’ officials—

John Hayes: I wasn’t here in 2002.

RODNEY HIDE: The law was passed with the help of officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Solicitor-General said that the law is “unnecessarily complex, incoherent and as a result almost impossible to apply to the domestic circumstances observed by the Police in this case.” We have to ask ourselves why we are pouring more law on top of that mess. Why are we not taking immediate action and sending what we have now to the Law Commission, and getting that fixed?

I have to say that I was very, very disturbed to hear the Minister of Justice say that the majority of New Zealanders think it is OK to round up some people running wild in the Ureweras and lock them up. Since when has justice and the question of who should be locked up been decided without evidence, without facts, without charges being laid, and without a case going to court, but instead by a public opinion poll? When was that ever the case? That statement alone has to give us pause for thought about the way we are promoting the so-called suppression of terrorism. If the majority of parties in this House say: “Let’s just round up those who are suspected, without knowing the evidence or the facts, and lock ’em up without a trial, without a proper charge being laid, and without knowing the case against them.”, and if the Minister of Justice says: “Oh, it’s OK because the majority of people say it’s OK.”, then I have to say that I fear for the ACT party, because under this law anyone could be rounded up. I say to the people of New Zealand that if it is the Tūhoe people this week, who will it be next week under this legislation.

I am amazed that we are debating in this House an amendment bill that will give unparalleled powers to the Prime Minister of New Zealand. The very idea that a Prime Minister of New Zealand can declare a person guilty of a crime without the person knowing even what the charge is, and without that person knowing the facts, and the very fact that that person’s assets can be seized as a consequence—

John Hayes: She can’t do that. Read the law.

RODNEY HIDE: I say to Mr Hayes that I have read the law. I have also read the Solicitor-General’s report, and I have to say that I am not sitting here feeling very proud about the legislation Mr Hayes supports.

I say this to the House: what would Sir Robert Muldoon have done with this legislation in 1981? Surely he would have declared the protest organisations to be terrorists. Surely he would have declared that their assets be seized. I ask Mr Hayes where the rule of law is in that. Does Mr Hayes not believe that we should live in a society where we know what the laws are and where we know what the charge is if we break the law? Should we not get to hear the evidence against us before we are punished and declared guilty? Should we not get to have our day in court? If Mr Hayes believes that, then he cannot vote for this bill. This bill does away with the fundamental rights of every New Zealander, does away with the rule of law, and puts arbitrary power in the hands of the Prime Minister. Why we would do this in this House, in this country, which professes itself to be free, I cannot imagine.

If we are going to fight terror, we have to do it on the basis of civilised values, because that is what the terrorists oppose. They oppose the rule of law. They oppose civil society. The very act of passing this law allows the terrorists to win, because it means that New Zealanders are surrendering their freedoms and the opportunity they should have to live their lives as they choose without arbitrary arrest. [Interruption]

I know that Mr Ron Mark thinks we should arrest anyone who disagrees with him, that we should arrest people and then say who can be let loose, and that anything that gives the police and the State more power is a good thing, but that is not what the ACT party is saying. Yes, we have to fight terrorism but we also have to watch the State. We have to watch the abuse of State power. And we have to watch for the abuse of that power by politicians. That is what the rule of law means.

This amendment bill overturns all of that. The day this bill is passed is a day when, in a rather large way, we surrender our freedoms to the terrorists by adopting a law that is unnecessary. Every New Zealander is entitled to know what the law is. Every New Zealander is entitled—if he or she is supposed by the authorities to have done something wrong—to know what the charge is. Every New Zealander is entitled to hear the facts of the case against him or her. And every New Zealander is entitled to have his or her day in court and to have the case heard before an independent judiciary.

This law goes absolutely against that. It is actually a fascist law—a law that puts the power in the hands of politicians to decide who should be guilty and who should be free. On that basis, the ACT party proudly opposes the bill, and has to say that it is very disappointed in the House for supporting such abysmal and abhorrent legislation.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) : There are some who see irony and others who see something more sinister about the fact that this Parliament is debating at this time the final stage of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, which is designed to amend the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002.

The first question that must be answered today is whether it is necessary—and, indeed, whether it is appropriate—that we should give final approval to this legislation, in light of the significant events of the last few weeks. I have asked myself two questions: whether the contents of this bill bear in any way upon the issues recently under consideration by the Solicitor-General, and whether we have seen anything in the last few weeks that would cause us to doubt the need for the general framework of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002.

I have given this matter considerable thought, and I am satisfied that this bill should receive its third reading. I am pleased that colleagues on this side of the House agree with me. First, none of the events of recent weeks touch upon the matters that are contained in this bill. This is a bill that is focused upon streamlining the process by which terrorist designations are rolled over. No designations were involved in recent events in the Bay of Plenty. With a number of senior colleagues I have reviewed this question with the Solicitor-General today. I thank the Attorney-General for facilitating that discussion. It is clear that the events that have been so widely publicised in recent weeks are very far removed from the contents of this particular bill. Second, none of the events of recent weeks cast any doubt in my mind about the need for the terrorism suppression legislation that was passed in this House back in 2002. Whether that legislation requires further amendment is a matter that I shall return to shortly.

I am satisfied that we should continue to support this bill becoming law now, in light of all the circumstances as they are known to us. But that does not mean that having passed this amendment into law there are not serious matters indeed that this House must attend to. Having passed this legislation, this House will have some unfinished business to attend to. The events of the past few weeks will, at best, have caused serious doubts about, but, at worst, caused some loss of confidence in, the institutions and processes by which this county is protected from serious disorder. On the strength of what we have seen in the media, there is room for doubt about the actions of the police and their legal advisers, the Crown Law Office, the Government that introduced the 2002 legislation and its advisers, and of course this Parliament, its select committee, its respective advisers, and the legislation that now sits on our statute book. One thing is clear to me in these circumstances: we cannot leave matters where they stand. New Zealanders are entitled to expect that such an important issue as this would see Parliament take all the appropriate steps to ensure that the public can have confidence in the law, in those who make it, and in those who enforce it.

Like almost all other New Zealanders I am handicapped by a serious lack of facts in understanding where the shortcomings might be, and what remedies might be required. But I take this opportunity to share with the House my broad thinking about what has happened here and about what should happen next. First, I am convinced that when the Solicitor-General, who has seen the evidence, asserts that some activities of a very worrying kind were being engaged in in the Ureweras, and that the public interest has been well served by their curtailment, then we should believe him.

It is also clear to me that the Solicitor-General gave the police at a suitably early stage of their investigation a very clear picture of the weight and strength of the material they would need to produce in order to secure his approval to proceed under the terrorism suppression legislation. The fact that the police chose to proceed down that path but failed to meet the test the Solicitor-General had signalled raises serious concerns in two areas. First, it raises serious concerns about the decision making of the police and the legal advisers to the police. It was a big call to invoke the Terrorism Suppression Act rather than to simply proceed under the Crimes Act and the Arms Act. That decision raised the stakes very considerably indeed. This Parliament passed special legislation with special powers for the authorities—powers that override the civil liberties of those involved—to deal with the most barbaric form of human behaviour, which is terrorism. Those special powers should never be lightly invoked. The fact that the police action under this legislation fell at the first hurdle invites very close inspection of the competence of the decision-making process, once such material as will now eventually emerge is produced before the courts. For my own part, I would be extremely concerned if it emerges that dangerous individuals who should have faced serious charges under the Crimes Act will instead face a slap across the wrist with a wet Arms Act bus ticket because of a misguided police excursion under the terrorism legislation that was never entirely intended for this purpose.

Second, questions will be asked about the law and about whether Parliament made a mess of its attempt to put suitable counter-terrorism machinery in place back in 2002. If, as the Solicitor-General has implied, there are deficiencies in the Act, then those shortcomings will have been clearly signalled by him to the police in indicating to them the standard they would need to meet in order to gain his approval for a prosecution. The Solicitor-General has used the word “incoherent” to describe some provisions of the Act, and at least implied that if Parliament was attempting to legislate against domestic terrorism then it failed.

I do not feel particularly defensive about the latter proposition. Although, like other members, I voted for the bill because I thought it a worthy, even essential, initiative at the time, I was not involved in its drafting, in the select committee, or in the debate in the Chamber. But I have gone back to inspect Hansard. It is very clear to me that, back in 2002, the House was attempting in the wake of the September 11 attacks to provide a framework to deal with international terrorism, and in doing so to comply with UN Resolutions 1267 and 1373. So I am not particularly concerned that the 2002 legislation might now be judged to have failed to achieve something that was never on Parliament’s mind in the first place.

If the threat of domestic terrorism was not on Parliament’s mind back in 2002, the question that now arises is whether recent events should cause this Parliament to have such a threat on its mind today. That is a question that we cannot properly answer without knowing a good deal more than we know today about the activities of certain individuals currently before our courts. But I suggest that in appraising such material that comes forward into the public arena over the next few weeks, we must be prepared as a Parliament to consider new legislative initiatives if it appears that there are gaps in the laws that protect members of the public from those who would do them harm.

Members on this side of the House will support this third reading of the bill today, but in doing so we equally signal our strong determination that as the relevant facts emerge we will play a full and active part in achieving the necessary changes that will enable the public to have full confidence in the laws that are designed to protect them, to have full confidence in those who make the laws, and, of course, to have equal confidence in those who are charged with the enforcement of the laws.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) : I will take a relatively brief call. First of all, I commend members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and the chair, Dianne Yates, for their work on the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the contribution of previous speakers, and I acknowledge that there is a genuine variety of points of view. With due respect, I do not agree with Mr Hide’s description of this legislation. However, it is wonderful that we live in a democracy and have a Parliament where members can use very strong language to discuss this legislation because they have very strong views about it. But those views are something I do not share.

A number of columns have been written in recent days on events that have occurred in recent times, which we are all aware of. They have formed something of a backdrop to the third reading of this bill, which was being considered by the select committee long before certain activities in New Zealand came into the public arena. Obviously the members of the select committee had no way whatsoever of knowing what was pending in terms of police actions being taken against certain individuals and organisations. I would take this opportunity to note a recent column by Chris Trotter in, I think, the Sunday Star-Times, which was quite clear and concise. Basically in the end he stated that in a democracy, arms and free speech never ever go together. It is quite an obvious statement, but it is good to have it restated. I think we need to refrain, if you like, from making some romantic, historical interpretation of the recent activities until all the facts are able to be tabled in a court. We should suspend judgment until that time.

To put this bill into perspective, I say it will bring New Zealand law into line with that of other countries with which we share and enjoy the stability and security of a fair and respected legal system. There are not many countries in the world that can genuinely say that. In my view, there are many countries where that is not the case. The select committee’s review of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 identified a number of issues around whether the Act was meeting New Zealand’s international obligations. As I understand it, after studying the select committee’s report, the Government concluded that those issues needed a legislative response. Once again I commend all members of that select committee, from across the political spectrum—which they are, on that select committee—for their work. I acknowledge, with respect, that there are differences of view, to which I and other members listen very closely, on that committee.

The bill contains amendments to bring the 2002 Act up to date with our current obligations and with further international developments and treaties, and sadly, as I noted, the actual substance of the bill has been overshadowed by recent events. I think that that fact is quite unfortunate—and I stress this point for the record and to those who are listening to this debate today. I think a degree of suspension of judgment is in order in terms of our having the full facts come out in subsequent court hearings. It is really unfortunate that the bill has been overshadowed by recent events, because the bill is the product of several years’ work by the select committee and officials.

I stress again that the bill amends the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 in order to meet New Zealand’s international obligations. That is what it attempts to do. It will bring our legislation up to date with international developments and treaties on terrorism suppression. That is what it attempts to do—pure and simple. This is not some kind of knee-jerk reaction or response to the events that have emerged in the public arena in our nation in the last few weeks. The bill is aimed at amending the 2002 legislation, to conform to New Zealand’s obligations under United Nations charters and to make the provisions in the current legislation workable as well. It removes the designation process for UN-listed terrorist entities in order to better reflect the mandatory nature of New Zealand’s UN obligations, and to remove any risk of inconsistency. Noting the provisions on the freezing of terrorists’ assets and the offences involving nuclear material, I say the legislation will further ratify New Zealand’s international obligations on terrorism and tries to sort out loopholes and inconsistencies in the 2002 legislation on terrorist offending that needed to be addressed.

There is a lot of luxury in terms of the media comment and comment by others. One does one’s best on the basis of the evidence that one has at the time, and it is my considered view that that is what the select committee has attempted to do, from across the political spectrum. Having said that, I acknowledge the deeply held views of a number of members of this House. I respect them. I do not happen to agree with those members who oppose this bill. Without further ado I compliment the select committee on its work. I believe that every member of this House is trying to come to a considered view, and I do not think we should underestimate the importance of this legislation. We should not underestimate the importance of having continued dialogue in our community and the importance of talking with each other.

But, dare I say it—and I quote from writers who have made this very obvious point—we should never ever forget. That is why we had the peace process in places like Northern Ireland, Cyprus, and other countries. We—thank goodness—are not anywhere near to going down that road at all, nor will we ever do so if there is constant dialogue. But caches of arms and political movements do not equal democracy. They do not equal everything that we stand for fundamentally. The notion of rigorous debate—even diverse debate, with deeply held views and the rigorous demonstrations that I witnessed in recent times even at a Labour Party conference—is part of a democratic process. We can agree strongly with some of the demonstrators and their behaviour, but the notion that we should turn a blind eye and say it is OK for any organisation in this country whatsoever to somehow have a notional cache of arms, if that is the case, and to be a legitimate political movement within our democratic society is not correct. Just as that was clearly not the case in Northern Ireland, Cyprus, and other jurisdictions, that definitely should not be the case in New Zealand. I certainly join with previous speakers in terms of their views on this issue.

I commend this bill to the House in a considered way, and I commend the work of the select committee.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Last week the Māori Party, along with the Greens, put an application to the Speaker in respect of attempting to have a discussion about the activities in the Tūhoe nation, and indeed the country, as an urgent debate topic for today, and obviously it was turned down. I seek leave of the House to see whether it will allow one more speaker—namely, myself—to speak to some of those issues, bearing in mind that it was at 4.30 or so on Thursday of last week when the Solicitor-General’s statement was made, and maybe other parties, like ourselves, have not had an opportunity to put those issues fully out on the table. So I seek leave to do that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is objection.