Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs) : I move, That the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

The House will recall the review of the Terrorism Suppression Act by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in 2005. The committee identified a number of issues around the working of the Act, and whether it met New Zealand’s international obligations. The committee encouraged the Government to consider whether those issues required a legislative response. The Government has studied the select committee’s report and concluded that most of the issues raised by the committee do need such a response, to ensure that the Act responds to New Zealand’s international obligations. The bill contains those responses. It also contains further amendments to bring the Act up to date with international developments. Since the last time the Act was amended, New Zealand has signed two new international treaties that require us to create new terrorist offences relating to terrorist attacks using nuclear material.

I will address, firstly, the clauses in the bill that respond to the issues raised by the select committee. This bill responds to those concerns by separating out the process for designating terrorists under two separate UN Security Council resolutions. It also amends the procedure for extending designations when they expire, and it seeks to repeal the “avoidance of doubt” provisions that were identified as problematic by the select committee.

It is important to recall that the Terrorism Suppression Act was passed to give effect to New Zealand’s obligations under several different UN instruments. Amongst those are two Security Council resolutions—Resolution 1267 and Resolution 1373. As the select committee noted in its report, under Resolution 1267 the Security Council maintains a list of Taliban, al-Qaeda, and associated entities. Member States are obligated to designate the individuals and entities on that list for the purpose of maintaining asset freezes and travel bans against them. The second resolution, Resolution 1373, requires member States to criminalise the financing of terrorism, as well as a range of other activities, such as participation or recruitment into terrorist organisations. The Security Council does not maintain a list of terrorists under this resolution, and instead requires member States to identify for themselves who should be subject to the criminal penalties.

When the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 was drafted and enacted, the dust had not yet settled from the September 11 terrorist attacks. At that time, it was decided that the best option would be to combine the two sets of Security Council obligations into one process—that is, to designate as terrorists under New Zealand law both the persons and entities on the UN list, and persons designated by New Zealand. Under that process the Prime Minister has the power to designate individuals or entities, if satisfied on reasonable grounds that they are engaged in terrorist activities. This process, however, has not turned out to be workable. The number of entities the Security Council has added and continues to add to its list under Resolution 1267 over time is significantly higher than was estimated at the time the Act was passed.

The select committee pointed out that New Zealand is different from other countries with democratic frameworks in combining the procedures for designating terrorists under both Resolution 1267 and Resolution 1373. The committee pointed out that other comparable countries use automatic procedures that directly incorporate the Resolution 1267 list, while maintaining a second discretionary process for additional terrorists to be designated pursuant to Resolution 1373. The Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill proposes to remedy this problem so that terrorist entities that appear on the Resolution 1267 list are automatically designated under the Act. The Act’s discretionary designation process will continue to exist, but only to those terrorist entities that the Prime Minister may choose to designate pursuant to Resolution 1373. This will ensure that the Act fully meets New Zealand’s international obligations under both Security Council resolutions.

The select committee also highlighted the role of the High Court in extending terrorist designations as being problematic. Currently, all designations expire after 3 years, unless extended by the High Court. The select committee review pointed out that should the High Court refuse to extend a designation that had been made pursuant to Resolution 1267, New Zealand would be in breach of its international obligations. There seemed to be little purpose in involving the High Court in a costly procedure that would lead to such an outcome. In order to remedy this problem, this bill will amend the Terrorism Suppression Act so that terrorist entities designated by the Security Council under Resolution 1267 will remain designated in New Zealand for as long as they remain on the Security Council’s list, without needing to be renewed by the High Court.

On the other hand, the bill also provides that designations made by the Prime Minister pursuant to Resolution 1373 will continue to expire after 3 years unless extended. That safeguard continues to be appropriate, given that designations under Resolution 1373 are discretionary and are made on New Zealand’s own initiative. The bill will, however, replace the role of the High Court in extending those designations. Instead, the Prime Minister will renew designations, if satisfied on reasonable grounds that the entity continues to be engaged in terrorist activity. This will make the Terrorism Suppression Act consistent with anti-terrorism legislation in other comparable countries. The select committee’s review of the Act noted that anti-terrorism legislation in the UK, Canada, and Australia did not involve the courts in reviewing or extending terrorist designations pursuant to Resolution 1373.

Although the role of the High Court in extending designations will be removed by this bill, the amended Act will retain judicial oversight over the designation process. Any decision by the Prime Minister to designate an entity, or a decision not to revoke a designation, will still be subject to judicial review.

The third major issue raised by the select committee in its review of the Act was the “avoidance of doubt” provisions in sections 8(2) and 10(2). The committee noted that the inclusion of those provisions was not required by Security Council Resolution 1373, and that other comparable countries, such as, again, the UK, Canada, and Australia, do not have such provisions in their legislation. The select committee noted that rather than avoid doubt, these clauses have created it, by confusing the mental element of the offences by establishing dual intentions. The intention to commit an act prohibited by the legislation can effectively be overridden by a broader motive relating to why someone wanted to commit the offence. The committee noted that sections such as these do not appear in the descriptions of any other criminal offence in New Zealand. The bill proposes, therefore, to repeal sections 8(2) and 10(2) of the Terrorism Suppression Act.

The select committee review also raised a number of other issues with the Act, such as its lack of a general offence of committing a terrorist act and the level of intent in the criminal offence provisions. The bill addresses these issues by adding a general offence of committing a terrorist act and by adjusting the mental element of the offence of participating in a terrorist group, in order to make it consistent with other terrorist offences in the Act.

Before concluding, I would like to address those clauses in the bill that bring the Terrorism Suppression Act up to date with new developments and add new offences. New Zealand has recently signed two new international anti-terrorism treaties: the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, and amendments to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. Both treaties have been through the treaty examination process, and the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee had no matters to raise with the House in relation to them. The two treaties oblige New Zealand to create new offences concerning the use of radioactive material and radioactive devices. The bill adds those offences to the Terrorism Suppression Act.

I am sure that the select committee will pay careful attention to this bill. It deals with difficult and contentious matters, and it deals with fundamental issues of liberties and the rule of law. It is important to get the balance right, and in trying to get that balance right in 2002, I think it is clear that we left certain lacunae in the Act, which meant that, in fact, it has not been as effective as it should have been. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) : I indicate in response to the Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee will indeed be giving careful attention to the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. The National Party, of course, will be supporting the introduction of this legislation and its referral to the select committee. We will give it the careful study that the Attorney-General has just urged upon the House, and we will also be using that opportunity to urge that the Government show some vigilance in using the powers that the Act bestows upon the Prime Minister, in particular.

I was one of the members of the select committee that took part in the tail end of the review process that Dr Cullen has just talked about. We were constrained very tightly—being a newly formed committee just after the election—by the time available to complete the review. It was very much a pro forma sort of report that went forward. But even in the context of the very brief hearings that we had, I have to say that I developed some very serious concerns about the way in which we go about our detection of terrorists and the way in which our authorities are given the opportunity to superintend the efforts of those people in New Zealand. I want to address this first reading speech in the context of those concerns.

As Dr Cullen has told us, the original legislation, the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, arose from the events of September 11. This bill does not precisely mirror legislation passed in other jurisdictions of our type, but it does in broad terms. I think Dr Cullen properly concedes that there were some inadequacies in the original legislation, and it is timely for us to address them. Some would say we should have done so earlier; indeed, I am on public record as having said that myself.

The Attorney-General referred to the two different vehicles that the original legislation provides for dealing with terrorists. Fundamentally, this bill is a tool kit for the authorities in this country to be able to look after those whom they fear will engage in terrorist activities on our shores. The original legislation deals with two different courses: first, United Nations Resolution 1267, which deals with the al-Qaeda or Taliban activities; and second, United Nations Resolution 1373, which deals with other terrorist groups that New Zealand authorities believe are a threat to this country.

In respect of the first category, which concerns the Taliban-related terrorists under Resolution 1267, Dr Cullen correctly told the House that this bill proposes some changes that the select committee members had in their minds when the committee reported to this House. The bill abolishes the nonsense of the High Court of New Zealand having to consider whether a designation should take place, when that designation had been put in place by the United Nations Security Council and the New Zealand authorities could have absolutely no idea why the Security Council did it. The New Zealand authorities may have no access to the information that the council had, and we would have the ludicrous situation where the New Zealand authorities would have to present a case to the New Zealand courts to uphold a designation, without having any information in order to do so. So we have a very sensible solution. We have the United Nations Security Council list becoming the New Zealand list, as far as Resolution 1267 designations are concerned.

With regard to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, this bill makes an important change in respect of the other terrorist groups—the ones that we are supposed to identify as posing a threat to New Zealand and to New Zealand’s friends, and to put on our list. The bill leaves the Prime Minister in charge of that process. The Prime Minister can designate and renew that designation, and I support that. Whoever the Prime Minister is in New Zealand will be a person who has won a mandate from the public. That person will generally be the Minister responsible for the SIS, and will be in receipt of the confidential briefings that occur in that role. Somebody has to carry that burden, and I am perfectly happy to support that change. Personally, I think that the Prime Minister of New Zealand should have that authority. So in that sense I have no difficulty in supporting this provision in the bill introduced into the House today.

Where I do have a problem is in the use of the tool kit that the original legislation provided, and that now this bill will provide for the House. In other jurisdictions we have seen a very different course followed. All countries, of course, have followed their obligation to put the Taliban-related terrorists on the United Nations Security Council list on to their own lists. We have been obliged to do so, and we have done so. But in relation to UN Resolution 1373 our behaviour has diverged very sharply from that of our neighbours.

It is worth inspecting that track record briefly in relation to this bill. I ask members to look at Australia. Under United Nations Resolution 1373 Australia has designated 88 terrorist entities. So it has taken fairly seriously its obligation to identify those terrorist groups, to give its authorities the power to watch those groups, and to take some action against them. Canada has over 50 groups on its list in relation to Resolution 1373. Since 2002 how many groups has the Prime Minister of New Zealand designated under Resolution 1373 and put on our list? She has not designated one. Not one terrorist entity has been designated by the Prime Minister of New Zealand under the powers given to her by this House back in 2002.

It is not rocket science. We have a very open border with Australia. Even if we take the very charitable view that New Zealand has no terrorist risk—and I certainly do not take that view—we would certainly have to take the view that there is a terrorist threat to our nearest neighbour, Australia, with whom we share an open border. If I was an Australian I would be looking at New Zealand and shaking my head, and asking what risks we were visiting upon our nearest neighbours by our behaviour under this legislation.

In Australia, 88 terrorist individuals or organisations have been designated according to Resolution 1373. New Zealand has not designated a single one. I tell the House, in relation to this measure, that outfits like Hezbollah are on the Australian list—I have the list here; I am happy to table it for members if they want to see it. The al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade is on the Australian list. Hamas is on the Australian list. The Abu Nidal Organization is on the Australian list. The Tamil Tigers are on the Australian list. The Real IRA is on the Australian list. The authorities in Australia see those organisations as being of sufficient threat to their country and its people to put them on the list of Resolution 1373 as designated terrorist groups. Not one of them is on the New Zealand list. That poses a real question for this House, not just about the safety of New Zealanders but about the safety of those in Australia.

I say to the Attorney-General, as he introduces this bill, that National will support the bill. National wants to send it to the select committee, it wants to see the provisions of the bill looked at very carefully, it wants to have the officials in front of it, and we want to know just how much this Government and this Prime Minister have been flirting with the security of New Zealanders. This issue should be taken deadly seriously by every member of this House. It is going to be taken deadly seriously by the National members on the committee. We want to see no stone left unturned when it comes to the protection of the security of New Zealanders.

This bill will certainly provide for some improvements, but it will be worthless if the Prime Minister of New Zealand does what she has done for the last 4 years—which is to not use the powers under this legislation that authorities in Australia have been so ready to use, as they exercise concern for the welfare of their citizens. So I warn the Prime Minister and the Government that as we look at this bill we will also scrutinise the conduct of the Government, and we will be making sure that it does better in this matter. This is a vital piece of legislation before the House today and it will make some improvements, but we will need to see some improvements in the conduct of the Prime Minister and the Government if it is to be utilised with effect.

DIANNE YATES (Labour) : I rise to speak to the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill and to say that we look forward to it coming to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I thank the member opposite for his support of the bill, and I also thank the committee members for the work they did on the review. As has been admitted before, the original legislation was passed in response to the events of September 11, and we are now looking at more requirements, and at the recommendations of the select committee, to make amendments. I know that the select committee will examine this bill very, very carefully, because we took as much time as we could on the review, and we will be looking at the provisions with much less constraint of time than when the matter came before the committee previously.

One of the issues brought out is always the balance between protecting the people of New Zealand—protecting us from terrorism, protecting us from outside influences that affect this country—and at the same time maintaining civil liberties and human rights. To get that balance is always an extremely difficult thing to do, especially when international incidents cause alarm and when we realise that we are now part of an increasingly close global community and we have to protect our borders and our people. But, as we have said, at the same time we have to maintain our high standards of civil rights and civil liberties.

This is one of those amendments that has one sometimes wanting to turn the page upside down to read, because, as is stated in the explanatory note: “Currently New Zealand is required to designate United Nations (UN) listed terrorist entities under the Act before they become subject to the provisions of the Act.” So this is a matter around designation, and it will take the select committee a considerable amount of time to make sure that we get it right—that we get the wording right, and that we get right the intention of the bill.

The explanatory note continues: “The Bill amends the Act by removing this designation process and applying the provisions of the Act automatically to terrorist entities that are subject to the United Nations (Sanctions) Regulations 2001.” One of the other issues that often comes up in our select committee, and that is an issue around here, is that, yes, we are a member of the United Nations, and, yes, we have signed up to our United Nations obligations, but we also have to adopt these obligations into our own law. One of the jobs of our select committee is to examine provisions so that when we sign up to treaties and to international obligations, we know that they are consistent with our own laws. That is what we are doing in this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, not only in making these amendments but also in looking at some new provisions that have come through, through the United Nations. So we have to give a considerable amount of close attention to this particular bill.

Some people will be concerned that the matter is now going to be decided by the Prime Minister rather than the High Court, and that is an issue we will have to look at. No doubt we will have a number of submissions to the committee from people who think that way. It is a matter of the committee calling for submissions in the usual way and looking very carefully at the opinions of those submissions. This legislation is not something that I think the New Zealand public will get wildly excited about. It tends to be those people who are interested in international law, and in the finer details of that law, who make submissions on this type of bill.

But something that is important to all of us is the matter of which organisations—as Mr McCully says—are on that list. It affects us as people, but it is not something that people generally get their heads around—except, of course, when they are travelling and concerned, or when there is an international incident, particularly when it is close to us. Then people suddenly say: “My goodness, could that happen here?”, “Are those people here?”, or “How does that affect us?”. So once again I thank the select committee for the good work that was done in the review—as I have said, there was a time constraint—and we look forward to being able to look more closely at the bill through this new process.

We also note that there are new developments and some new penalties, and the committee will be looking at those very carefully, as well. If there are loopholes or inconsistencies, I know that the committee, with the expertise of those on the committee and those who have worked on this issue previously—those who were part of the review—will be very clear about examining the process. When I listened to the debate, I somehow thought that we had had this debate before. Yes, we have, but I am pleased that the Minister has taken heed, not only of the select committee’s review but also in looking to update the legislation in terms of changes in the United Nations and changes to our international obligations.

As has been said, the amendments to the Act will make changes that are significant—changes that the select committee and, no doubt, the submitters will be keen to examine in great detail. I thank the members of the select committee for the attention given. We have on our committee a considerable amount of expertise in these areas, and I am sure that members are looking forward both to examining the clauses in detail and also to asking a number of questions in order to clear up matters before this bill comes back to the House. I thank the Attorney-General for his presentation of this bill, and I thank members opposite for their support at this first reading stage. The committee looks forward to examining in greater detail the provisions of the bill.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : As the National spokesman on foreign affairs has indicated, National supports the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. Clearly, the bill will fix some serious problems with regard to the designation process. In fact, some time ago those of us who are on the Opposition side of the House did warn that a Government cannot abandon security issues—who is designated and who is not—to the High Court. There were very good reasons for that warning. These issues are not, fundamentally, judicial issues. Who is designated, and who is not, are national security matters. The High Court cannot be expected to have the sort of information that the Prime Minister would receive. As has already been noted by Murray McCully, the Prime Minister will almost certainly be in charge of the Security Intelligence Service, and will receive confidential briefings from it. So one should not abandon the national security of this country to the courts. That matter is primarily a responsibility of the Government, and the Government does receive confidential information.

That point raises another issue, does it not? Mr Ahmed Zaoui, after 5 years now, is still in the court process. I have to say it is remarkable, to put it mildly, that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has yet to deal with his security status. This area of law is crying out for reform. The Prime Minister raised that as an urgent matter, literally years ago in this House, but no changes have taken place. It is, frankly, unsatisfactory that a person like Ahmed Zaoui—who has been convicted in Belgium, in a proper hearing, of associating with terrorists, and of supporting those who had guns, money, explosives, and multiple passports—can arrive in New Zealand and claim refugee status, then we have the SIS say that he is a national security risk because of all those convictions, yet we are still waiting for that issue to be resolved. That cannot be satisfactory even to the Green Party, which is highly sympathetic to Mr Zaoui. Surely, we need a better process than one that takes 5 years to try to work out whether someone is a security risk. It would be a good thing, given the incredibly short Order Paper that the Government has, if the Government actually did something about that part of the law, as well as proposing the measures set out in this bill.

As Murray McCully has indicated, New Zealand—or, more accurately, the Prime Minister—has been entirely guided by the United Nations lists. I want to look at that particular issue. The UN lists, by definition, reflect a complete global consensus. Every State in the world has to say an organisation is a terrorist organisation and an individual is a terrorist. So on that basis, only the most extreme and the worst organisations and individuals are designated. That is the reason why al-Qaeda, in its many different forms, is so prescribed. No country will come out in support of al-Qaeda. But that raises a further question: does one go for the lowest common denominator list as one’s only list, or are there other entities and persons who should be designated?

Let us take, for instance, issues in the Middle East. Clearly, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Jordan, and Syria are probably going to say no, we cannot possibly designate the armed wing of Hamas or the armed wing of Hezbollah, notwithstanding that they target innocent civilians. Clearly, those countries could not do that, in terms of their own domestic politics. New Zealand has ended up being guided by their views as to who should be designated. In contrast, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, three countries that the Attorney-General referred to in his address as like-minded countries to New Zealand and as countries whose systems we should adopt, have taken a different view—not about the Hamas part of the Palestinian Authority, the civil part, but about the armed wing in particular, which has deliberately not recognised Israel in any respect whatsoever; not even inside the 1967 borders. Those countries have designated the armed wings of Hezbollah and of Hamas as terrorist entities. New Zealand is completely silent on those groups. It effectively means that the countries in the Middle East that cannot deal with Israel—and many of the countries that I mentioned, like Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Libya, do not even recognise Israel—in effect dictate New Zealand’s policy, because we have bound ourselves into the UN list, and into only that list.

That, I suggest, does not reflect the way that countries in the Commonwealth—and I specifically note in the Commonwealth—have designated a number of parties. I draw to the attention of members opposite, as, indeed, Mr McCully did, that Australia has designated 88 individuals and organisations. Canada, which often follows a similar path to New Zealand in international relations, has designated 50. New Zealand has absolutely zero designations.

I want to refer specifically to the Australian list. For instance, in relation to Ireland, which is hugely important because of the things that have occurred there, Australia has designated the Real IRA. The Real IRA was made up from the people who split off from Gerry Adams, because they thought he was doing the wrong thing. They wanted to continue the armed struggle, as they called it. But, in fact, they were terrorists who bombed pubs, hotels, buses, and the like. Similarly, there is the Loyalist Volunteer Force on the Protestant side—irredentists if you will; people who have opposed the hugely important reconciliation that we have seen on our television screens over the last few days. That was a historic situation whereby the Rev. Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams were able to come together and show a new path forward for Northern Ireland. So the irredentists—the people who are opposing that process—should be prescribed.

There is complete silence from New Zealand on something like that. When we fail to do something like designating those groups, we then fail to support the people who are actually building peace in the countries concerned. So we say to the Government that it should not take just the lowest common denominator approach and confine itself to the UN list; it should think more broadly of New Zealand’s national interests, in common with those of other Commonwealth countries. We have tough questions to ask in the select committee, and we will be asking them. We want the New Zealand Prime Minister—of whichever party—to look after New Zealand’s national interests, our security, and the security of our friends and allies.

National supports this bill; it is necessary. But we have serious questions to ask, and we expect the Government to answer them.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : The Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill is a very important bill. We live in a volatile world, and that makes this bill triply important. New Zealand First will be supporting the bill. As has already been noted, the need for the amendment arose from a review of the Terrorism Suppression Act by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in 2005. In that review a number of issues around the workings of the Act were identified, and issues around whether it met with New Zealand’s international obligations were also raised.

The bill contains several of the legislative responses recommended by the select committee, and further amendments to bring the Act up to date with international developments—such as for offences relating to terrorist attacks using nuclear material. The bill separates out the process for designating terrorists under two separate UN Security Council resolutions. It amends the procedure for extending designations when they expire, and it seeks to repeal the avoidance of doubt provisions.

The Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 was enacted as a consequence of the 11 September terrorist attacks. Things have moved on from that time—indeed, in many ways, they have got so much worse—and so must our response move on. The Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill will ensure that terrorist entities that appear on the UN’s Resolution 1267 list are automatically designated under the Act, whilst also allowing the Prime Minister’s discretionary designation process to continue.

The bill will also amend the Terrorism Suppression Act so that terrorist entities designated by the Security Council under its Resolution 1267 will remain designated in New Zealand for as long as they remain on the Security Council’s list, without needing to reviewed by the High Court. On the other hand, the bill also provides that designations made by the Prime Minister pursuant to UN Resolution 1373 will continue to expire after 3 years, unless extended. The bill replaces the role of the High Court with the Prime Minister when renewing designations. Any decisions by the Prime Minister to designate an entity, or a decision not to revoke a designation, could be subject to judicial review. This will make the Terrorism Suppression Act consistent with anti-terrorism legislation in other comparable countries.

In summary, although these changes to the Act can be explained as technical changes, they are necessary both to bring New Zealand into line with international obligations and to ensure we are operating in an up-to-date and workable environment. New Zealand First supports this bill going to select committee.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party is disappointed that the Government has come forward with the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. We are disappointed because the Government is not taking account of the much greater awareness now, compared with in 2002 when the Terrorism Suppression Act was passed, that there has been an international overreaction in anti-terrorism measures. There is a recognition now that many of the anti-terrorist measures driven out in the United States have detrimentally affected human rights. We see an almost universal revulsion at the treatment by the United States of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, where due process has been very limited. A common concern of the critics has been that the executive branch of Government has been given excessive power to determine whether people or groups are terrorists, with little judicial constraint or due process.

Instead of saying: “Whoa, we haven’t gone as far down the repressive track as America, Australia, and Britain.”—and that is good—this bill is actually bringing us closer to those countries. For example, when the Terrorism Suppression Act was being debated in 2002, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee went to great lengths to make sure the judiciary could review the Prime Minister’s terrorist designations 3 years on. This bill destroys all that work with a new provision that the executive branch, in the form of the Prime Minister, will review its own designations. All that remains in the bill is a general power of judicial review—something common to ministerial action in a range of fields—which applies really only in points of law and is very difficult, time consuming, and expensive for anyone wrongly designated as a terrorist.

The section of the bill to automatically transfer the United Nations list to the New Zealand list also takes out any opportunity for due process to apply. Previously, there was a common-sense qualification that the transfer would be automatic “in the absence of evidence to the contrary”. It would be the height of injustice for New Zealand to possess incontrovertible evidence that a New Zealander had wrongly been designated a terrorist by the UN yet still put that person on the New Zealand terrorist list and consequently have all of his or her property seized. Yet that is exactly what this provision in the bill proposes to do.

It is well known that the UN process, whereby the Counter-Terrorism Committee designates terrorist entities, is seriously flawed. It operates entirely on the basis of the committee trusting that Governments have correct information when they put forward entities for inclusion on the list and that these Governments are not influenced by prejudicial political agendas. Any person or group challenging its own inclusion on the UN terrorist list has two hurdles in its way if it wants to get off the list. Firstly, it has to get a Government to back it, which means, given that most of the designations are from America, that the Government needs to be confident enough to take on the superpower—which is not a lot of Governments.

The Swedish Government tried to get three of its citizens of Somali origin off the list but had only partial success after a long-drawn-out process. To get a person or group off the list, there has to be a consensus of Governments, including the United States, which is not easy. There has been an attempt by some European Governments, such as Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland, to have a fairer listing and de-listing process on the counter-terrorism committee, with some ability to test evidence, but this initiative has not gone very far.

The problem the UN has faced all along, which is why it has never come up with a clear definition of terrorism, is that one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter. We all know that the Muldoon Government called Nelson Mandela a terrorist and that New Zealand Government officials labelled the East Timorese under Xanana Gusmão as terrorists. In one sense they were correct, in that some of the armed actions of both the South African and East Timorese liberation movements killed civilians. But the terrorist label is inappropriate, because such actions were not the main aspect of their liberation struggle, and the Governments they were fighting—which the New Zealand Government had good relations with—were terrorising the people on a much greater scale.

The same applies to some of the popularly supported nationalist groups operating in the world today that have also been labelled as terrorists, such as Hamas and Al Fatah in Palestine. Again, strangely enough, the Israeli Government is generally not labelled terrorist, even though its forces are responsible for more than 90 percent of the civilians killed in Israel and Palestine over the past year. In Western countries, where Governments lean more towards Israel, Hamas supporters are more liable to be caught under anti-terrorist laws, whereas, in Arab nations, it would be more likely to be those who support the Israeli Government.

So we can see the problem the United Nations has. That is why it is so bad that this bill takes out a qualification carefully put into the 2002 Act that New Zealanders could support a liberation movement, even if that movement engaged in some terrorist acts, provided such support was used “for the purpose of advocating democratic government or the protection of human rights.” Taking this qualification out could mean—depending on which foreign Governments New Zealand might be wanting to impress at the time—the criminalising of New Zealanders who support the nationalist struggles in places like Palestine, Chechnya, the Kurdish areas of Turkey, West Papua, or Sri Lanka. The opportunities for such criminalisation are increased by the looseness of the definition of “terrorist act” in the 2002 Act, which goes well beyond some of the better overseas definitions, such as that in the Security Council Resolution 1566 in 2004, which describes terrorism as “criminal acts, including those against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public …”.

In the New Zealand Act’s definition, people with no intention of harming anyone or of destroying property can still qualify as terrorists. They can simply be putting pressure on the Government for “ideological, political, or religious reasons” by causing “serious disruption to an infrastructure facility if likely to endanger human life”. This could catch even non-violent liberation movements that engage in mass strikes, demonstrations, or civil disobedience campaigns. In a New Zealand context, the mass disruptive activity by protesters against the 1981 Springbok Tour comes to mind. Perhaps some of those 1981 protesters would have been charged under the Muldoon Government for committing a terrorist act that now becomes a separate offence under this amendment bill, with a maximum penalty of life. This could lead not only to injustices, if a really bad Government comes to power in New Zealand, but also to problems and inconsistencies in our legal system.

Already any of the crimes that could be covered under the broad definition of terrorism in the Act—from murder and kidnapping to lesser offences—are covered by particular provisions in the Crimes Act and have their own particular penalties. There is also the mistaken and prejudicial assumption running through the Act, and reinforced by this bill, that lawbreakers who have a political motive have a bad political motive, or at least should be treated as such. This is the reasoning behind taking out that qualification—that it is not an argument for the defence that a supporter of an alleged terrorist was doing so “for the purpose of advocating democratic government or the protection of human rights”.

Back in 1981 a contrary reason applied in most Springbok Tour cases, in that judges and juries actually let off people, or reduced penalties, for their lawbreaking because of their good political motives—that is, these New Zealanders were acting in the interests of the oppressed black people in South Africa. Much of the credit New Zealand has in South Africa today is as a result of black South Africans seeing on their TVs the sacrifice that ordinary New Zealanders made for their cause back in 1981. Let us hope that when people in places like Palestine and West Papua finally win their freedom, they will also be able to remember that there were New Zealanders who supported them and whose ability to do so was not constrained by anti-terrorism legislation, such as we have before us today.

It would also enhance our country’s international reputation as a peacemaker in countries where there is internal conflict not to have determined one of the parties—generally the non-Government party—to be terrorist. Such open-mindedness, or even-handedness, opens the door for New Zealand to do serious peacemaking of the sort we did in Bougainville a few years ago. I think we have a mission internationally to be a good peacemaker and to recognise that in most countries where there is a conflict it is generally the case that the Government in the conflict often commits more terrorist acts than the non-governmental group that it is fighting.

We have to take an even-handed approach. If we remember what has happened in Northern Ireland, we see that one of the reasons why there was able to be that political engagement between the British Government, Sinn Fein, and the Unionists was that Sinn Fein was never made illegal, even though the IRA was. Sinn Fein was never made illegal, so that allowed for the engagement to take place. The same applies in many conflicts around the world. Although we might always criticise terrorist acts and never justify them, we often have to engage with groups who commit them as part of their struggle—critical of them though we may be. Thank you.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātoui te Whare. This Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill stirs some very strong memories in my mind, and some even stronger feelings in my heart. I do not mind saying that those feelings are not fuelled by the jingoistic, acid-drenched, hate-filled, anti-Islamic, “death to anyone from the Middle East”, vitriolic, poisonous crapola that the United States is trying to foist upon the rest of the world. My understanding of terrorism comes from a far different source—a source that relies on historical fact rather than hysterical drama for its position, a source that connects me to my indigenous brothers and sisters around the world, and a source that roots me clearly in Aotearoa, the home of my ancestors and homeland forever of the Māori people.

Last year I was privileged to be invited to a conference in Canada. The United Nations Expert Seminar on Treaties, Agreements and other Constructive Arrangements between States and Indigenous Peoples was held in Hobbema, in the Treaty Six territory, Alberta, Canada. While I was there I saw a T-shirt that some of the local brothers were wearing. It had a picture of Geronimo and a couple of his warriors carrying weapons. The caption below read something like this: “Homeland Security—Fighting Terrorism in the USA since 1495”. I paused to think that although we are separated by thousands and thousands of miles, indigenous sentiments about colonial terrorism are exactly the same.

The picture and the sentiments on those T-shirts reminded me of a book I read when I was doing “bed and breakfast” in Mount Eden Prison. The book was called Watch for Me on the Mountain, and it was about the rebellion of Geronimo and his people against the rampaging racist terrorists of the United States 7th Cavalry, who were operating under a clear mandate from their masters in Washington to crush everything that stood in the way of the land-hungry, gold-maddened settlers, and to round up, hunt down, and kill, where necessary, any natives who stood in their way. Everyone in this House knows the phrase: “The only good Indian is a dead Indian”—such were the sentiments of the United States of America just a couple of hundred years ago. So when I think of this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, that too is where my understanding of terrorism comes from.

I reckon we could probably update that “dead Indian” threat to read: “The only good sand-nigger is a dead sand-nigger”, to explain the United States’ current misbegotten crusade in Iraq. It is misbegotten because it is a military campaign born out of the union of the lies about weapons of mass destruction that were never found and the link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein that was never proved. Yes, I call it a crusade, because it is a venture of Christian paranoia against Islam. It is a task that “Richard the Lion Breath” and his foolish followers could not achieve hundreds of years ago, and a failure that George Bush, with all his technological superiority, is doomed to repeat. So when I think of this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, that too is where my understanding of terrorism comes from.

Now we hear that the United States of America has finally charged some dumb Aussie, David Hicks, as its first Guantanamo “war on terror” detainee. An Australian, for heavens’ sake! Six years after 9/11, is this the result of billions of United States intelligence dollars being spent on securing a conviction to justify its war in Afghanistan? An Australian? Heaven forbid that we in this country should be connected in any way with the mind-numbing stupidity and pointlessness of a process that has failed so spectacularly that after 6 years all it could come up with was a so-called confession from an Australian charged with providing material support. Seriously, hands up all those in this House who believe that that confession was entered into freely and willingly. When I think of this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, that too is where my understanding of terrorism comes from.

I recall too that my time in Mount Eden arose out of an uprising right here in Aotearoa, when tens of thousands of people right throughout the country marched against the terrorist apartheid regime of South Africa in 1981. Like many others in this House, I will never forget the picture that used to come up on TV of a young man running through the streets of Sharpeville and carrying a young girl who had been shot to death by Government-sponsored agents of terror. It is an image that helped to shape an understanding in the minds of thousands of New Zealanders that our passion for rugby should not be allowed to be sullied by a link to State-sponsored terror and State-sponsored murder. So when I think of this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, that too is where my understanding of terrorism comes from.

I can recall too a very personal connection to South Africa. I recall one brother, a member of the African National Congress, who fled the terror in his homeland, Andrew Moletsane. Andrew came to my home in Ōtara, South Auckland to give testimony about the terror being imposed by the crumbling apartheid regime of South Africa. A few years later Andrew Moletsane was hunted down and murdered in Botswana by one of Botha’s goon squads. His name is recorded forever in the list of African National Congress members who died in exile between March 1960 and December 1993. So when I think of this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, that too is where my understanding of terrorism comes from.

I make another personal connection to the pain and suffering of the black people in apartheid South Africa. I recall calling Bishop Desmond Tutu to take the stand as my one and only witness in the trials that arose out of the arrests of the members of the Patu squad following the final Springbok match at Eden Park. Bishop Tutu was a small man, but when he walked into the courthouse that day, the whole world stopped. His entry stunned the whole courtroom into silence and scared the hell out of me, as the person who had called for his testimony. I asked him to tell the court what apartheid was, and for the next 20 minutes, in a quiet and humble voice, Bishop Tutu proceeded to describe apartheid through the eyes of one who had been forced to witness the terror imposed upon his people—the degradation, the humiliation, the pain, and the death. As he spoke we could have heard a pin drop. When he stepped down from the dock that day, I looked around and saw something I had never seen before and have never seen since in a court of law in this country. The public rose to their feet to acknowledge the man and his message; the prison wardens rose to their feet, as well; the police stood up; the press stood up; the lawyers stood up; the defendants stood up; even members of the jury stood up. I found out later that the judge had to force himself not to stand up, such had been the power of the truth of the terrorism that was apartheid. So when I think of this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, that too is where my understanding of terrorism comes from.

Last night I took the opportunity to read some of the history of the Te Rōroa claim, and I was overwhelmed by the loss of land, the loss of mana, the loss of pride, and even the loss of life that the people of Te Rōroa have had to face over the last 180 years. That reminded me of the Muriwhenua claim, the Tainui claim, the NgāiTahu claim, and many other claims. It reminded me of those who gave their lives all over Aotearoa to save their lands from the rapacious actions of colonialism. Again, I was reminded about the real impact of terrorism right here in Aotearoa. So when I think of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, that too is where my understanding of terrorism comes from.

I will not even mention the terror imposed on the Dreamtime people in Australia, the Kanak of New Caledonia, the Maohi of Tahiti, the Kanaka Maoli of Hawaii, and even those who fought in the Mau uprising in Samoa against the colonial terrorists of New Zealand. America dominates the world and stomps around the sandpit of the Middle East like a spoilt bully, smashing little brown kids who would dare to say no to its excesses and demands, and killing thousands of innocent civilians to repay one act of terror in the United States of America.

The suppression of terrorism is not a one-way street. After 9/11 President Bush said: “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. … Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” I am happy to say that the Māori Party will oppose the use of terror to impose one-eyed, nationalistic misconceptions of religious superiority and governance on any people, whether committed in the name of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda or in the name of George Bush and the United States of America. Kia ora tātou katoa.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) : I listened to the previous speaker, Hone Harawira, with some interest. There were flashes of relevance to the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill during his remarks. I think the main thread that emerged during that rather fascinating, discursive tale of recent history was that terrorism in a variety of manifestations has always been with us and always will be.

The issue that this bill addresses is the immediate reality we face in terms of the response to certain international events of recent years. I will speak as someone who was chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee that conducted the review during 2005 of the terrorism suppression legislation that was passed in 2002. It had become clear by that time that there were deficiencies, many of which are remedied in this bill.

I express some concern that it has taken us to this point to get this legislation into the House. On the face of it there is an absurdity. Here we are trying to put in place for New Zealand legislation that enables us to deal with what we all see as a mounting threat of international terrorism, and to make sure we are able to respond, to protect our people, to secure our borders, and to do all of those sorts of things. Yet it has taken us 18 months to get legislation before this Parliament to deal with the outcome of a review about the procedures that we had in place at the time we passed the original legislation.

I am not saying that these changes are not necessary; they are. The position we had, where the High Court would have to review all existing designations, was clearly absurd. Given the number of organisations that have been designated, the reality is that without the provision contained in this bill, the High Court would find itself doing nothing else but reviewing terrorism designations, and that would clearly be an absurd practice. So the provision to give that roll over power to the Prime Minister is a pragmatic and practical one in the circumstances. New offences have also been introduced that again pick up the fact that since 2002 there have been additional developments that need to be addressed.

I come back to a point that was made by Dr Mapp and, curiously enough, in a similar vein, by Mr Locke, during their remarks. Dr Mapp argued that we were taking a lowest common denominator approach in adopting the United Nations list of organisations and individuals to proscribe. Mr Locke argued the converse of that, which was actually the same point. He was arguing the danger of simply taking an all-or-nothing approach. It is true that we need to be able to select for ourselves those organisations and individuals that might be of greater relevance to this country. But I would sound a grave note of caution, because we run the risk of confusing organisations with whom we have a political difference and organisations with whom we have a very deep difference because of their avowed terrorist objectives.

So I come back to the UN list as being a solid basis from which to work. One could well agree with some of the examples that Dr Mapp listed at a political level, in respect of the undesirability of those organisation or their attitudes vis-à-vis the position of the New Zealand Government over the years. But it is going too far to automatically proscribe some of those organisations as “terrorist” simply because we disagree with the political stance that they have been taking. On the other hand, the position that the United Nations has adopted, and the organisations that it has registered as “terrorist”, is one that stands an international test of credibility.

Most of us would take the view that in an ideal world none of this sort of legislation would even be contemplated. The normal relations between States and individuals would be able to be carried out in a free and harmonious manner. That has never been the case, unfortunately; it never will be where we have human beings involved. But the reality then becomes where, when one comes back from that ideal, does one draw the line at what is reasonable? The whole test has to be that where there is absolute certainty and absolute clarity that the organisations in question are evil, are terrorist, and deserve to be proscribed, they should be. Where there is doubt, then the doubt needs not to fall on the balance of the country making the call but on the balance of that organisation.

As the previous speaker so eloquently illustrated, there are occasions in history when yesterday’s terrorist becomes today’s freedom fighter—today’s nation builder. The South African situation is a classic case in point.

Hone Harawira: And the Māori Party.

Hon PETER DUNNE: I would never have described the Māori Party as terrorist, and I am not sure that the member is seeking to do that.

Hon Member: Tourist!

Hon PETER DUNNE: He may have a view on that, as well. The point I am making is that we need to be very careful that we do not get ourselves into a position where for transitory political advantage we proscribe organisations and terrorists, only to see, as the situation changes, that we may wish to take a different view.

I support the provisions of this bill. I support the way in which it has been crafted and the approach it has adopted. I know it is going to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I am not sure whether the Minister is moving for a restricted period of time for its consideration, but I would certainly hope that we do not have to wait too much longer before the bill can be passed and enacted. As I said at the commencement, it strikes me as somewhat absurd that in our rush to make sure we have a very rigorous anti-terrorist regime we have taken 18 months to implement the results of a review that was conducted during the life of the previous Parliament. I think we can be more expeditious. I think there is priority attached to this legislation and genuine support around the House for its provisions. So I hope progress can be made.

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) : I rise to speak to the first reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill on behalf of ACT New Zealand. For many of us, terrorism brings to mind the images of 11 September 2001. That day brings to mind images of heroism and, indeed, of sadness; images of people jumping from windows before the World Trade Center fell; and memories of the shock waves that were felt right around the world, including in the far corners like New Zealand. We also remember 7 July 2005, when terrorists bombed trains and buses in London, and we remember the Bali bombings of 2002, where our Australian cousins were directly targeted.

The purpose of terrorism, of course, is to spread terror. The purpose of terrorism is to undermine reason with fear. The purpose of terrorism is to change our societies not through the power of ideas but through the power of car bombs and suicide belts.

Although New Zealand is a small country a long, long way from the world’s trouble spots, we must be alert and vigilant. We have in this very building a stark reminder that no country is immune. On the wall of the steps down to the basement hangs the torn New Zealand flag that was rescued from the ruins of the World Trade Center. That flag was unearthed in the rubble and returned to New Zealand. On 11 September 2001 ACT spoke in this House about the need to defend our way of life and to preserve our freedom. We spoke about the fact that as long as we refuse to live in fear, the terrorists can never win.

Many measures and many laws have been put in place since that time—11 September 2001—in an attempt to combat terrorism. Many powers have been bestowed upon the State. However, when the State is required to act in such a strong manner, there must be strong safeguards in place to ensure that this overwhelming power that the State has been given cannot be abused. For this reason, the ACT party will be opposing this legislation.

The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee toiled over the Terrorism Suppression Bill for many months in 2001 and 2002, and there have been many references to those discussions in this House today. Both submitters and the committee itself were greatly concerned at the powers they were handing to the State. So the committee introduced a substantial role for the courts to play in monitoring the way in which this legislation was applied. These strenuous efforts, made to ensure that there was a significant judicial role in the review process, were, in ACT’s view, right and proper at that time. The bill that we have before us today—the amendment to the principal Act I have just referred to—removes almost all those protections that that committee introduced, and we find that unacceptable. When this bill is referred to the select committee after today’s first reading—and it seems clear that it will—the committee should be very mindful of the discussions, the submissions, and the committee’s views as determined at that time, because they were put in place for very good reasons.

My colleague from the Green Party Keith Locke has pointed out a great number of very pertinent issues in his speech, and it does not hurt to remind this House of some of those. The High Court, previously, was given the task of overseeing the 3-yearly review of the terrorist designations. These will now be done by one person, the Prime Minister. In regard to that, Keith Locke has said that given the serious consequences for anyone designated a terrorist, it is unfair for the person who made the original designation, the Prime Minister, to be the person later checking whether it was accurate. The only legal avenue open to a designated person is a difficult and expensive judicial review, and these points should not be forgotten. Judicial review is not an adequate process by which to appeal a designation under this legislation. It can be complex, drawn out, and prohibitively expensive, especially for those who may have had their assets frozen under the provisions of this legislation.

A background note was distributed with this bill, and it made for some quite interesting reading. It was distributed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs—the Minister whose name this bill is in—the Rt Hon Winston Peters. In this background note the Minister stated: “It has become an administrative burden to require the Prime Minister to designate so many names to keep up to date with the changes and additions to the Resolution 1267 list.” Well, if that is the reason for bringing this amendment bill before the House, that is nothing short of shameful. The Prime Minister carries a heavy burden of responsibility, and if it is the intention of this Government to absolve her of that responsibility, I think it needs to take a long hard look at why it is in power.

The list currently has about 460 entities on it. It is simply not good enough for the Prime Minister to shirk her responsibilities—her duties—in respect of the bill in this way. What we must do is protect our nation’s sovereignty. We cannot delegate the power to unelected bureaucrats to designate the term “terrorist” on any person or any organisation without some form of oversight from our elected officials.

Terrorists want to destroy our way of life and to take away our freedom, but we play into their hands if we surrender our freedom by passing bills such as this. This is a very appropriate time to remember—and I have borrowed some words here from a senior Australian officer—that the term “war on terror” is an oxymoron. Terrorism is a tactic and war is a strategy—a strategy with goals and aims in mind—and we should remember that the term “war on terror” is an oxymoron. It is the intent of terrorists to grind the activities of the Western World to a halt. With many of the measures that have been put in place since September 11, we have, in fact, aided terrorists in their goal to do just that—to grind the activities of the Western World to a halt.

One of the Ministers, who seems to have disappeared now, mentioned that the anti-smacking bill related to the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act. He was quite right in pointing out that that bill has similarities with this bill, although I think his intention was somewhat different. With this bill, as with the bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act, there will be unintended consequences.

Terrorists are not worried about local laws. They do not worry about the fact that we are sitting here in this House today debating this bill and trying to do something to combat the acts of violence and terror they bestow upon the world. It should be remembered that when we have laws, they should be enforceable and regularly enforced. We should not be putting laws in place light-heartedly. So today, in the name of protecting our freedom, we are being asked to surrender it, and that is something that the ACT party cannot and will not support. For that reason, we oppose this bill.

JILL PETTIS (Labour) : First of all—seeing that I am following the ACT speaker—I want to say that this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill is not about the Prime Minister shirking responsibility, regardless of who the Prime Minister is. I am not making a partisan statement; I am making a statement of fact, because the bill also provides that designations made by the Prime Minister, pursuant in particular to Resolution 1373, will continue to expire after 3 years unless they are extended. It is all about having safeguards, and this safeguard continues to be appropriate, given that designations under this resolution are discretionary and made on New Zealand’s own initiative. However, it is also important to say that the bill will replace the role of the High Court in extending those designations. Instead, it will be the Prime Minister who will renew a designation if he or she is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the entity being designated continues to be engaged in terrorist activity.

This bill is a legislative response to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee’s review into the 2002 Terrorism Suppression Act. The select committee identified a number of issues, and was thorough. The issues it identified included whether the Act was meeting New Zealand’s international obligations—and we in this House know that New Zealand exhibits a very responsible attitude towards our international obligations and is a responsible member of the international community. I cannot see that that will change, nor will this amendment bill change the attitude we all share in New Zealand. After studying the select committee’s report, the Government concluded that there were issues that needed a legislative response, and the bill contains amendments to bring the 2002 Act up to date with current obligations, further developments, and international treaties. The original bill was drafted and enacted not long after the September 11 attacks, which was a time of shock, horror, and high emotion, and the amendments will make the bill more current.

When Mr McCully spoke in the debate, he gave the impression—whether he intended it, or not, but I am sure he knew exactly what he was saying—that he would have on the designated list almost anyone who did not look like us. We have to exercise care and caution. There are people who have no intention of harming anyone or destroying property, but who could be classified as terrorists if we were not careful. A terrorist can now be someone who, for political reasons, causes damage to infrastructure, and we in New Zealand have experienced that, even though we live in a very safe environment. There are those of us who remember the 1981 Springbok Tour very, very clearly, and some of us know exactly what our views were on that issue and where we stood on it. But there are some people in this House who do not remember where they stood on that issue. I know, and remember, exactly where I stood on it. Of course, it is not very long ago that the Rainbow Warrior event occurred. So we do have to exercise care and caution.

We need to define what constitutes a terrorist act and what is a terrorist. I am sure the select committee will pay very close attention to that because, as one of the earlier speakers mentioned, yesterday’s terrorists are sometimes today’s heroes. Some of us have been privileged to be in the presence of, and to meet, people who were previously labelled terrorists. In fact, some members of “acceptable society” who made uncharitable comments about those people when they were still outside that society, could not wait to have dinner with them when they stepped inside the tent and became acceptable to mainstream society. Again, I mention that, and I repeat that what constitutes terrorism is different for different people, and events that occur can be viewed as terrorist activity in some people’s minds but not in the minds of others. Some of us have seen films of events that could have been described as terrorism when they occurred, but may not be described in that way today. The endeavour to eliminate a race of people, in my opinion, is terrorism, but it may not necessarily, in the strictest form, be described in that way.

The bill allows the 2002 Act to automatically designate terrorist entities subject to the UN resolutions of 2001. The bill also replaces 3-yearly reviews by the High Court on all designations for terrorist entities with 3-yearly reviews by the Prime Minister, but only on non-UN designations. It brings provisions on the freezing of terrorists’ assets, and terrorist participation and offending, into line with New Zealand’s international obligations—towards which we have a very responsible attitude, as I said before. The bill is aimed at amending earlier legislation. The provisions on freezing terrorist activities and offences involving nuclear material are also important, and will further ratify New Zealand’s international obligations on terrorism. Loopholes and inconsistencies in the 2002 legislation on terrorist offending need to be amended, as well.

I am confident that the select committee will give this bill its thorough attention, and I look forward to it coming back to the House after the committee has concluded its processes. Thank you.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) : I am pleased to talk to the first reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. National supports this bill. National thinks it is very important that New Zealand shows itself to be serious about terrorism. It is said that terrorism proceeds when diplomacy has failed. Unless the world’s leaders and diplomats vow to work harder to get to the underlying causes of terrorism, then it is the case that we have to take steps to make sure we play our part in combating terrorism worldwide, and also to make sure we protect our own citizens right here in New Zealand.

I was a bit surprised at the ACT party’s opposition to this bill. I could not quite make out why that was the case. I think the speaker for ACT gave a false impression of the Prime Minister’s role in this. It is not that I am defending the Prime Minister as such, but within 2 years we will probably have a new Prime Minister, one from this side of the House. It seemed to me that the member might have created some confusion outside this House as to the role of the Prime Minister. In respect of United Nations Resolution 1267, the Prime Minister actually has no role, no choice. It is mandatory for New Zealand to be involved in that mechanism. That is why this bill and the changes proposed are important. Currently, New Zealand is required to designate United Nations - listed terrorist entities under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 before they become subject to the provisions of the Act. This bill amends the 2002 Act by removing this designation process, and automatically applying the provisions of the Act to terrorist entities.

As I say, this change underlines the mandatory nature of New Zealand’s legal obligations under the Security Council’s al-Qaeda and Taliban sanctions. The Prime Minister has no part to play in that. We must do it; we have no choice. It is part of our being good global citizens. Until the world’s leaders and diplomats find some way to get to the bottom, the causes, the root of terrorism, then we must take proper steps to make sure that those who would threaten the world—the globe—with their terrorist activities are known to us and are kept an eye on. That is part of UN Resolution 1267.

The other mechanism, of course, is that under UN Resolution 1373, in which case it is the Prime Minister who designates those entities that are suspected to be of some danger, in the sense of terrorism, to either New Zealand or our neighbours. We would hope that the Prime Minister would take that responsibility very, very seriously. National members certainly will when we are in Government, in a short time.

I echo the comments of my colleague the Hon Murray McCully—although perhaps not quite as vociferously as him—that it seems strange that in the 5 years since the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 has been in place the Prime Minister has not designated one entity as coming within this regulation. In our view, the fact that Australia has designated 88 entities, Canada over 50 entities, and New Zealand none causes some concern and worry. My colleagues on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee certainly will want to look quite closely at what lies behind the failure of New Zealand to date to designate any entity under Resolution 1373—whether we have in place the conditions or qualifications to ensure that that is done, and whether they are rigorous enough. As I say, it seems very weird—quite bizarre, actually—that our neighbour Australia has seen fit to designate so many entities, and we have not seen it necessary to designate any.

I take on board the comments made by other speakers about the balance that must be struck so that we are not impinging unduly on the rights of New Zealand citizens. But, of course, this measure will not necessarily apply to just New Zealand citizens; our country’s population is made up of not only New Zealand citizens but also others who are here on temporary visas, residence permits, and so on. So although there is certainly a balance to be struck in terms of our not targeting entities or people just because we do not like the look of them or have mere suspicions about them, it is the case that we must take seriously our responsibility to ensure that we play our part in the war on terror.

I took part briefly, as a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, in the review from 2005 to 2006. It is, I think, somewhat of a disappointment that it has taken 5 years for the review to proceed and the bill to reach the House. I support the Hon Peter Dunne’s plea that this bill be given priority; otherwise, we do not look serious about our responsibility in respect of terrorism threats. We do not look serious if we do not give this bill priority. Given that the Government has such a light Order Paper—a very light Order Paper—and it has been so for some time now, it is a bit of a mystery as to why the bill has taken as long as this to come up the Order Paper. But it is here, and it will be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

I know that my National colleagues on the committee, and, I have no doubt, the Government members of the committee, as well, will give this bill due consideration. I do not know whether the referral will have a time limit. I think there should be one. Nonetheless, I urge the members of the committee to give this bill the highest priority in order to show the United Nations that we are serious about our obligations under Resolution 1267, and to give the Prime Minister an opportunity to knuckle down and make sure that we are not being slack in not designating any entities, and that we are playing our role in the war against terrorism—not only for ourselves but as a good neighbour to the Pacific countries, Asia, and Australia.

SHANE JONES (Labour) : Kia ora. Mr Deputy Speaker, I begin by commending you for your judiciousness and very refined sense of judgment in looking to this side of the House for the call; not that that comment reflects any personal ill will I bear toward Mr Nathan Guy, who has demonstrated that his level of interest in multilateral affairs stretches to being a member of the golden oldie parliamentary rugby team, and excelling—well, “excel” might be the wrong word, but I recall his playing a reasonable game in France.

I stand to support the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, because underlying this bill is the tenet of multilateralism. Recently, the Prime Minister ventured into the hallowed corridors of power and influence exercised, enjoyed, and projected by the greatest military power on Earth, the United States of America. While the Prime Minister was there it was evident that, despite our modest numbers, we are regarded as a very key influence on the overall war against the spread of terror, on ensuring that there are international obligations in terms of security, and on improving and enhancing the nature in which all citizens in the free world live.

Of course, other members in the House have rather jaundiced views of our relationship with the United States of America, but this bill actually shows that we take very seriously our obligations under the United Nations’ arrangements. Not so long ago we stood very solidly with the arrangements that we are a part of through our membership of the United Nations. Yes, our trans-Tasman cousins struck off in a different direction. But this legislation reminds us that we are, firstly, a citizen of the world community, and that the world community embraces, by and large, the virtue and the central importance that the United Nations represents in terms of mediating conflict and also of having a system whereby all countries can play their role to meet global acts of terror or global problems.

Obviously, the ongoing capacity of those nefarious organisations the Taliban and al-Qaeda to disrupt not only our quality of life but economic security, trade, and the free movement of people is something that New Zealand should be very proud to stand against. These are matters that should not be confused with the minority view that exists in some quarters of our country that we should detach ourselves from activities where the United States of America might be present. So we play a key role in Afghanistan, because that is an action that has been endorsed and is being embraced by such multilateral arrangements as we see evident throughout the United Nations arrangements.

It may not be immediately apparent, but our enabling this bill to travel forward is not a surrender of sovereignty; it is our upholding our duties and obligations as world citizens. We as an exporter—as a key trader in the world, with so much of our GDP depending on export earnings—need to play our role in as many places as possible to ensure the free passage of goods and services. The existence of the organisations referred to in this bill represents a threat to that. We disproportionately would suffer if there were continual unravelling of security arrangements. Not only would the ability of large freighters and vessels to carry our produce to far-flung places in the world be compromised, not only would tourism—one of the largest earners of foreign exchange currency, if not the largest—suffer and be compromised, by dint of people’s fear of travelling vast distances to New Zealand, but we would slowly but surely lose our status and our quality of life.

If we want to maintain our quality of life, then we have duties larger than those that exist amongst ourselves. We have obligations that are of a global character. The fact that the Prime Minister was able to demonstrate how seriously we are taken, despite our modest numerical size, in the land of Uncle Sam is a fantastic reflection of the commitment that this Government has—indeed, that I think all serious members of the House have—to our fulfilling those international obligations.

It might be said that our Australian cousins are more aggressive—they are more abrasive—more assertive, or, some might say, more thorough in terms of their particular approach, which has more of a bilateral character to it. In some sense that may reflect their proximity to South-east Asia—who knows—but we stand firmly as a part of the broad family that upholds the principles and the tenets of the United Nations. From time to time, the United Nations does come out with some reports that do not meet with my personal approval. Indeed, we had one written by a chap whose name—although he lives in Mexico—reflects his German ancestry that I did not care for at all, and the less I see of it the better I feel. However, that aside, I tell members that these are matters far more important than his observations about social disparities in some quarters of New Zealand society.

The United Nations’ call to arms, in terms of our fulfilling a role, really is an opportunity for us to continue to project our identity internationally and to burnish our credentials, because if there is a small country in the world that has been a disproportionate provider of men, women, sons, and daughters in international conflicts, then we are it. Towards the end of the year we will have an opportunity for a number of New Zealanders to venture overseas, and I hope to assist some of our kaumātua to go to the fields of Flanders, the Somme, and Passchendaele, which are places where we played a role in international conflict, in the First World War. In the Second World War, we as Māori New Zealanders paid the ultimate price of citizenship by rallying to send the flower of our youth in the Māori Battalion. I personally would like to see the Māori Battalion used a hang of a lot more as a role model for what our young men might do, what our young men might aspire to. There should be less fascination with the subculture—the crass, negative subculture—that is imported here, and more focus on that particular institution, which represents a fine example of Māori New Zealanders paying the ultimate price in challenging the forces of global terror, fascism, and, indeed, Nazism. There would not be any Māori members in this House, just as there probably would not be any other member in the House, who do not have a very close relation—a grandfather, a grand-uncle, an uncle, or perhaps even a father—who played a role in those international forays. Of course, we could go on to talk about the representation of our people in the conflict in Korea, the conflict in Viet Nam, and in a host of other fora.

As I wind up, I tell the House that I have been told that prior to my arrival there was an impassioned speech from my whanaunga Hone Harawira. I would like to say that there is one thing we know about my whanaunga Hone Harawira: we will never perish doubting what he said or thought. The fact that I have ended up having a slightly different approach from that of my Te Aupōuri kinsman in respect of our relationship with America should in no way diminish the fact that there always has been a very strong streak of independence in our New Zealand identity. This bill in no way erodes or undermines our ability to fashion our identity in the broad context of those nations and communities that wish to uphold the obligations under the United Nations. Kia ora tātou katoa.