CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : I rise briefly to support the bill. For those outside Parliament who did not realise who the previous speaker was, that was allegedly the foreign affairs spokesperson for the National Party. He spent 10 minutes rubbishing the bill, then told us he was going to support it.

I support this bill. It implements and beefs up counter-terrorism measures after a wide-ranging review in the post - September 11 environment, and gives a whole series of new powers, including the power to detain property intercepted across the border, beefed up investigative powers, and others.

Mr Mapp made some comments about defence and the lack of resourcing. I remind him that under his Government the defence vote was cut by in excess of 20 percent—the biggest cut in the history of this country. Yet Mr Mapp has “Ronald Reagan-itis”—“I do not recall; I have amnesia.” It is a bit rich for that member to get up and talk about beefing up defence resources, after his Government made the biggest cut in the defence vote in the history of this nation. He should pipe down and explain to the people of New Zealand why he did that, before he makes any comment on this bill.

This is a good bill. Who would have thought that the provisions in it would be contested by the Opposition in a post - September 11 environment? We have to put this legislation through. We have international obligations to put this legislation through. We would be an irresponsible Government and Parliament if we did not enact the measures in the bill. Finally, instead of that member making cheap political points and forgetting his own history, he and his party should be responsible and support the bill. They should give it a critical examination, but should support it in a bipartisan way—as Mr Dunne and others do on these sorts of bills. I support the bill.

RON MARK (NZ First) : I rise to indicate, first, that New Zealand First will be supporting the passage of this bill, as I think all sane-minded New Zealanders would want us to do. This bill is one of those bills on which we can play politics for quite some considerable time, and the temptation arises right now to remind people—

Hon Matt Robson: You’re pretty good at that.

RON MARK The member cannot resist, can he. I have to congratulate certain members in the Government. They have really come a long way, and this bill probably indicates their maturing. I recall being a young soldier in Anzac Day parades when certain members of the Labour Party were activists in peace movements, and were vigorously expressing their points of view on defence issues. They were taking it out on servicemen who had done precisely what their country had required them to do; they were spitting, throwing paint, throwing themselves down in front of servicemen who were marching, abusing them, their families, and their children, abusing anyone as a “baby bayoneter”, and doing those sorts of things.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: That’s not true. Stop making it up.

RON MARK: Lianne Dalziel says I am making it up.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I didn’t throw myself in front of servicemen.

RON MARK: I did not say you did, Lianne Dalziel. She is a little sensitive.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Do not bring the Chair into the debate.

RON MARK: I did not say Lianne Dalziel did. However, large numbers of Labour Party people were actively involved in organising those demonstrations. Large numbers of Labour Party people had a different view of defence in those days. But today this Government, and many of those people, are waking up to the realities of the world, and that is a good thing. It is a shame that it takes events like September 11—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: It’s a shame you can make up nonsense.

RON MARK: She really has lost her rag today. The Holmes show must have been quite bad, I gather.

Peter Brown: It was terrible.

RON MARK: There we go; that explains it. It is good that the bill is here and it is good that it follows on the heels of the Terrorism Suppression Bill. Once again, I remind the House that other terrorists, who reside in this country, need to be dealt with in the same way. They wear gang patches.

Hon Matt Robson: Who are they?

RON MARK: Mongrel Mob, Black Power, Highway 61, and the Filthy Few. Does the member want me to keep going? How long does he want me to keep going? [Interruption] Clayton Cosgrove is such a silly lad. He deserves to be ignored. The bill has—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: That member was in Government for 2 years and did nothing.

RON MARK: They really do lose their rag, do they not. It has been a bad day for the Government. It has been a bad month for the Government. At a time when I am trying to compliment Government members—[Interruption] Well, I am responding to the interjections, which I am permitted to do. As long as those members wish to fuel the fire they will wear the heat. It is as simple as that. On a day when the Government is—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I remind members on my right of Speaker’s ruling 51/5, which says that running commentaries are out of order. If members wish to make a speech they can take the next call.

RON MARK: Thank you. The bill is good and it is necessary. We will support it. I also compliment people who have problems that I do not have; people who see in the bill all sorts of things that they fear in terms of encroachments on human rights. Mr Locke has fought very hard and long for the Green Party, expressing his view; his minority report is there for everybody to read. I do not have a problem with the tracking device clause. I do not have a problem with the extra powers that the Customs Service has been given. I do not have a problem with the extra investigative powers that the Minister spoke of in his speech. The provisions are necessary. The threat we face around the world is greater than us. We no longer live in a benign environment. We have had bombings on our doorstep, and are likely to have more in the future, and legislation like this is necessary.

Just like other members, I would like to think that this Government and Governments to come will reinforce our defence and security capabilities by increasing defence budgets—as New Zealand First has recommended—to 2 percent of GDP, so that we are able to play a stronger and more positive role in the suppression of terrorism internationally. We cannot continue to advance the Labour Party’s view that we should enter the global market and the global economy with free-trade agreements, and ignore our responsibilities to the world in which we seek to trade. We cannot ignore our security responsibilities and sit back and expect everybody else to provide that umbrella of protection. Adhering to the requirements of the UN resolutions in respect of dealing with and suppressing terrorism is something that we must live up to, and slowly we are getting there. But it takes more than that; it takes a solid commitment to the establishment of competent, capable, and meaningful defence forces, and that includes personnel, and as a nation we have failed to live up to our commitments in that area. We live in a time when our police force outnumbers our Defence Force, and that is a curious fact. There are 7,000 uniformed and non-uniformed staff in the police force, and we would be lucky to scrape up that number in the Defence Force.

Stephen Franks: The enemy is within now.

RON MARK: One could say that. As we march towards securing the “People’s Democratic Republic of New Zealand”, we could believe that that is happening right now.

I compliment the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade on the work that has been done on the bill, and I compliment the staff. I compliment the entire select committee. The debate was long and the consideration was long. There were discussions on human rights issues that absolutely seemed to go on for year after year. My only comment would be that we can sit here and discuss those human rights issues, but we should talk to the families who lost people in Bali about human rights issues—bearing in mind that we have just seen remembrance services held in Bali for that sad occasion. Sadly, there will be more bombings in the Western World, and more people in the Western World will die. That is not something we can completely prevent, but legislation like this might well arm us with the tools necessary to prevent it from happening here in New Zealand, and, hopefully, along the way protect some of our friends and allies, be it Australia, Britain, Singapore, or whomever. The bill is a good bill. Let us get it through and get it voted on.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party will be voting against this bill. Although the bill has some good provisions, it also contains several provisions that undermine our civil liberties. I was on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee that considered the bill, and I presented a minority report, which I shall be explaining and elaborating on.

For a start, the Greens believe that to call this bill the “Counter-Terrorism Bill” is wrong, because it includes several amendments to the Crimes Act, the Summary Proceedings Act, and the Misuse of Drugs Act that have no specific reference to terrorism. Members of the public who wished to comment on some of those amendments might not have known that amendments of that character were in the bill, because of the misleading title. Also, in the atmosphere of today, where people do not like to be seen as soft on terrorism, people might be reluctant to criticise the contents of a bill that is called the “Counter-Terrorism Bill”. The Greens did attempt, unsuccessfully, to have the bill split into two bills, the first one concerning amendments to the Terrorism Suppression Act, which could have been called the “Counter-Terrorism Bill”, and the second one amending the other Acts, which could have been called the “Crimes Amendment Bill”.

Perhaps the most dangerous change is the proposed new section 307A of the Crimes Act, in clause 7, that could lead to heavy penalties for people threatening to engage in forms of protest action that cause “major economic loss to one or more persons”. Let us consider the current debate over the foreshore and seabed, particularly over consents for marine farming. Various Māori spokespeople have talked about the possibility of taking direct action. Under this provision, if Marlborough Māori even so much as threaten to conduct some protest on the water that might affect the establishment and functioning of a marine farm, they could get up to 7 years in jail. The same applies to groups that threaten to pull out GE food crops planted after the moratorium is lifted.

Trade union strikers could also be hit by this law. Unions often threaten industrial action if negotiations break down. There is a so-called comfort clause, new section 307A(2), which provides that threatening a strike “by itself” is not criminal. But that does not stop threatening a strike from being against the law if it will cause major economic loss. We all know that the aim of strikes is to cause the maximum economic disruption of a workplace in order to get the employer to negotiate more reasonably. Section 307A(2) is clearly a threat to the right of protest and free speech.

The bill also has provisions enabling further intrusions on our privacy. One section gives police the broad power under warrant to put tracking devices on people or their cars in relation to any suspected offence. The police need only to suspect that an offence “will be committed” at some time in the future for a tracking device to be installed, and it may be installed even prior to any warrant application. Given the technological sophistication of tracking devices and their small size, and the ease with which police could install and operate them, this could lead to substantial intrusion on our privacy, not only for the actual target people but for any people they happen to visit. The Privacy Commissioner was aware of how intrusive tracking devices can be, and suggested that, at least, it be made illegal for the general public to use them, unless the person being tracked gives consent. He even provided the text of an amendment to the bill to this effect, but the select committee did not accept it. The Greens will be moving the Privacy Commissioner’s amendment during the Committee stage. We do accept that tracking devices can be useful in society—for example, for taxi-drivers to monitor their fleet—but this tracking is done, and morally should always be done, with the knowledge and consent of the drivers concerned.

Privacy is being threatened also by the proposed new section 198B of the Summary Proceedings Act, in clause 33. In this high-tech age, we all have so much of our lives on the hard drives of our computers. All sorts of personal correspondence, our innermost thoughts, and much of what we have been doing over the past few years are recorded on the computer. Yet, under this new section, when the police are searching premises under warrant for any offence they can demand full access to everything on a person’s computer. Specifically, this means that person has to provide any passwords or encryption keys to the police. As submitters to the select committee pointed out, this goes right against the age-old common law right to avoid self-incrimination.

The bill was supposedly improved in the select committee by the addition of a subsection that allows a person to withhold information tending to incriminate, but this qualification was then rendered null by the next part of the section, subsection (2C), which says that this right of refusal does not apply to information sitting on a suspect’s computer. This provision could lead to fishing expeditions to check for any evidence on people’s computers of criminal behaviour. The new section 312N of the Crimes Act and the new section 26 of the Misuse of Drugs Act could also lead to fishing expeditions, because they allow communication interception warrants issued for one purpose then to be used to search for evidence on a wide range of offences.

There is a part of the bill that is actually related to counter-terrorism, and the Green Party supports those amendments to the Terrorism Suppression Act that bring New Zealand into compliance with the Nuclear Materials Convention and the Plastic Explosives Convention. However, we are opposed to other amendments to the Terrorism Suppression Act on such matters as harbouring terrorists, because they are based on a flawed process in the original Act for designating who a terrorist is. The designation process is done by a politician—the Prime Minister—not a judge, using an overly broad definition of terrorism, and even drawing on secret evidence that the person or organisation so designated is not allowed to see in any subsequent appeal process.

The dangers of secrecy and labelling people as terrorists are illustrated in the current Ahmed Zaoui case. Mr Zaoui suffers in gaol, and is not allowed information on the charges against him, despite his being cleared by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority. This new bill even subverts this designation process, allowing customs officers the right to seize material from people not yet designated as terrorists, but whom they consider might become so designated. There is simply no demonstrated need to grant the Customs Service such a power.

The Green Party challenged the definition of terrorism in the original Terrorism Suppression Bill when it was debated in the House last year. We said it could easily catch New Zealanders engaged in international solidarity work with West Papuans, Acehnese, or Palestinians whose use of arms may be deemed terrorist by those who rule over them. Nelson Mandela and Xanana Gusmao were once considered terrorists for using arms in their liberation struggles, and the New Zealand Government of the day—the Muldoon Government—tended to go along with that definition. Who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter is often a politically vexed question, and should not be left to a future, potentially vindictive Prime Minister—as it is in the Terrorism Suppression Act.

The broad definition in that Act, which is applied to the amendments in this bill, is also a threat to the right of protest or the right to strike in New Zealand. Under this bill, there is no need for protesters or strikers to intend to cause death or injury by their actions for them to be defined as terrorists. Their activity needs only to be on the scale of the major protests that occurred during the Springbok tour, or a strike in a hospital, for it to be deemed to cause “serious interference with, or serious disruption to, an infrastructure facility, if likely to endanger human life”. Members should note the word “likely”; the provision does not require an intention to endanger life. The actions also need to be political and to “unduly” compel a Government to do something. Governments often believe that activists are unduly compelling them.

There is growing recognition in New Zealand and around the world that the so-called war against terrorism is being used for unjustified restrictions on civil liberties. We can see that in many countries, we can see it at the US base at Guantanamo Bay, and it is very disappointing to see the New Zealand Government going down that track with this bill. We do not need to undermine civil liberties in the fight against terrorism. To do so is to concede a point to the terrorists, whose aim is to restrict civil liberties, not increase them. I think that we should not, under the guise of counter-terrorism—as in this bill—introduce general changes to our criminal law that restrict and undermine the civil liberties that we have long enjoyed: the right to avoid self-incrimination; the right to privacy in our life, including, today, privacy of our computer files; the right not to be tracked throughout our travels; and the right to freedom of speech and protest without being subject potentially to designation as a terrorist by a political figure such as a Prime Minister under the Terrorism Suppression Act.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) : I want to speak in support of the Counter-Terrorism Bill, and I do so as chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which examined the legislation. I say to the previous speaker that one of my pet bugbears in life is having to queue up to go through the metal detector at airports. I do not like it, I think it is an intrusion on my freedom, I find it an affront to my dignity, etc. I think it is probably unnecessary, but I accept that in today’s environment, where international terrorism is of such a scale that we had not contemplated 2 years ago, those affronts to my dignity are the small price that I have to pay unwittingly, unwillingly, but necessarily in this environment. I say that to that member, because that is the distinction with this bill.

I think we can have very prissy debates about where the line is drawn between individual freedoms and collective obligations, and I have some sympathy in an ideal world with a number of the things he has said and has argued for at the select committee. We know now to our sad cost that, if we ever did, we certainly no longer live in an ideal world. It might have been easy to say of September 11, 2001, that those events occurred far away, that flying aircraft into the symbol of United States capitalism was probably a protest directed firmly against the United States Government, and that we in New Zealand have no particular cause for concern, even if we were shocked and horrified by those events and the tragedy that ensued.

If that was our view, we certainly could not have repeated it one year ago last weekend, when a much more indiscriminate bombing took place in Bali. Paddy’s Irish Bar and the Sari nightclub were hardly symbols of international capitalism, or the great struggle of the Western world against Islam, or any of the other symbols that people like to portray. It was random, it was indiscriminate, it was murderous, and it was close to home. We know that, because of the New Zealand citizens who lost their lives there. If September 11 was no wake-up call, surely Bali was.

An event like that might not occur in our part of the world in the foreseeable future. It might never occur in our country, but “might” is the operative word. I would have thought that the options we face are pretty clear. We can revert to the attitude with which I began this speech, of saying: “I don’t like it, I don’t want to be part of it, it inconveniences me, I’m not prepared to accept any wider responsibility until tragedy strikes”, or we can take a preventive attitude. I look at the Counter-Terrorism Bill, and at the Terrorism Suppression Act that it supplements, as being part of that preventive attitude. That is why I believe it is in our best interests.

There are valid points to be raised about the limitations on individual freedom, and whether the powers contained in this bill, when handed to unscrupulous Governments, create an intrusion into the rights of ordinary New Zealanders that we would find intolerable. In response to that argument, I say that it has been raised many, many times over the years in many different circumstances. With the exceptions of, perhaps, the Public Safety Conservation Act of 1932 and the waterfront strike regulations of 1951, the reality of this country has been that we have been blessed with Governments and leaders over the years who have not so indulged. It is not part of the New Zealand character to become involved to that degree in the repression of our own citizens. While members may say that that is a remarkably complacent view, it is a realistic one, given our circumstances. Therefore, when we paint pictures of what might happen and of what risks might be imposed on New Zealand safety, we need to test them against the record. In that context, the measures contained in this legislation are a small price—if any price at all—to pay for maintaining a degree of security and freedom in our world.

I pick up a point that Dr Mapp raised. There is some validity in the argument that this bill, as promoted as a counter-terrorism measure, contains a number of other measures that go well beyond the sweep of counter-terrorist behaviour. Dr Mapp made the point that in such circumstances, perhaps, there should be a wider public debate. I note that we received some 25 submissions on this bill, and only 11 of those submitters chose to be heard. The issues were canvassed widely, but the issue that he paints as the base of his concern has some validity. It was a fine-run thing in the select committee as to whether we separated the bill into two bills, or whether we proceeded with it as a single measure, as it has been reported back. On balance, the committee came to the view that a comprehensive package was better than two separate packages.

There is one other element I will refer to, and the Minister referred to it in his comments. This was the first time that the Attorney-General came before a select committee to discuss advice given under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I was particularly pleased with that, because it arose from the committee’s consideration last year of legislation concerning the Kyoto Protocol. At that time, we were in the somewhat bizarre position of being advised by the Minister what the decision was in respect of compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but the Minister then indicated that she was unable to advise us what the content of the advice was because of some ancient 19th century legal precedent, which created an absurdity. Here we were, charged, as a select committee, with determining whether a bill was appropriate, but with one hand tied behind our backs.

It is to the credit of the Attorney-General and others that it was subsequently decided that that procedure was a nonsense, and that Ministers could come before select committees and make comments about the advice they had received as to compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I regard with some satisfaction that it was on this bill and before the same committee that that particular responsibility was exercised for the first time. I hope it will not be the last time, because the discussion, in terms of the implications of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act for this legislation, was a valuable one, especially in terms of some of the things we have just been discussing, particularly regarding the limitations on individual actions that this legislation might impose on the wider public interest.

In conclusion, I make the observation that in many senses this legislation is not about New Zealand. Thankfully, we are not a hotbed of international terrorism, nor are we likely to become such a hotbed, but this bill is part of a package of measures that have been implemented around the world since September 11 in order to demonstrate, firstly, an international unity in terms of the abhorrence of terrorism and a determination to stamp it out, and secondly, some degree of consistency in terms of the procedures being adopted across nations and borders to try to eliminate that threat. I am under no illusion—and I suspect most members feel similarly—that this removes absolutely and for all time the threat of a terrorist outburst in New Zealand. That can never be the case. The best any legislative environment can seek to achieve is minimisation of the risk. I believe that in doing that, this measure, which supplements the work of the original anti-terrorism legislation, is appropriate. It is something that the House is of a mind to support, and I believe we should proceed to do so. We can hardly claim we are rushing this though. It has been almost a year since the bill was introduced. The Terrorism Suppression Act took just under a year, after September 11, to pass. There has been plenty of time for the consideration of all the issues involved. The debate has been a reasonable one, and it is now time to proceed with putting this measure into law.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) : I rise on behalf of the ACT party to comment on the second reading of the Counter-Terrorism Bill as it has been reported back from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. The ACT party is not represented on that committee, and the bill has been a very long time in gestation. I hope that in the Committee stage ACT will hear an explanation of some of the elements that are not fully explained in the commentary on the bill. While we are as concerned as any in the House—and as blunt—about defence matters and that primary duty of the State to defend its citizens, we are also very aware that freedoms can be lost in the course of defending them.

It is part of the objective of terrorists to so provoke democratic and free states, that they repress their citizens or engender in their communities a loss of the values that so many terrorists hate, including a loss of the respect for the individual and the view that the individual has rights that must be upheld for human dignity, even at the cost of the collective. In saying that, I am distinguishing our position from that of the Green Party. We share some of the same concerns, but we come from a very different place. We may end up voting with the Greens on some elements of this bill, because we are concerned about its implications for freedom, but it will not be because we want to see the kinds of movements and groups that the Greens want to defend prosper and flourish.

We will not be voting in favour of liberty in that provision because we think, for example, that strikers ought to have a privileged position and be more immune from the consequences of their actions than anyone else. We hope that the Committee stage, which this bill is about to go through, will explain why it is that even in the post - September 11 environment, international obligations under conventions can appear to panic this House into allowing law to be passed that is not fully defined.

The Terrorism Suppression Act, which part of this bill refers to and amends, incorporates offences by reference. Some of them are incorporated in a way that could be injurious to the legitimate freedoms of New Zealanders. We have to remember also that there are tyrannies that have been overthrown only by force, and that there are tyrannies that New Zealanders have helped to overthrow by force. When I read through the definitions in this bill of a terrorist act, it appears to me that there are things we honour New Zealanders for participating in that could now become matters on which a foreign State that does not respect our values or citizens could seek an extradition warrant. Mr Locke mentioned the struggle in East Timor, and there have been many other struggles where violence—whether or not we dislike the necessity for it—is ultimately what the people had to resort to. It seems to me that in this bill we compound or endorse some of the faults of the Terrorism Suppression Act passed last year, and I am sorry the select committee did not take the opportunity to revisit those provisions in a slightly less-fevered environment.

We are concerned that there are some elements that deliberately extend the draconian provisions of that Act into our normal criminal law. There is something about terrorism that tends to produce the view that Mr Dunne just espoused. I think he said that he was impatient, and he thought it was time to move on what was discussed in this House in respect of the Sentencing Act. Hate crimes generated the same kind of attitude. That may be because they are so irrational—or are so irrational to rational people. The victims are selected at random. They may have done nothing whatsoever to earn or to excite the attention of offenders, and it may be that there is a special kind of evil about that, which is quite properly reflected in the sentence. There are amendments to this bill to do that—to make the 17-year minimum sentence for aggravated murder, for example, available for what are defined as terrorism offences.

I am reminded that Mr Goff refused to treat the hate-crime amendments to the Sentencing Bill as provisions for terrorism, but now we have a definition that is very close to the hate-crime definition and we are doubling up already. We introduced special classes of people in the Sentencing Act, who became entitled to special treatment. The groups given the special protection of the hate-crime penalties were obviously deemed to be more worthy of protection by the law than those who were not—and that was random. Now we are compounding that by amending the same section in the Sentencing Act in order to make the terrorism provisions apply, when that could have been done in the first place. Mr Goff should have explained why it was not, and why the law is not now rationalised.

ACT will be looking to know what members of this House think is meant by the words “unduly compelled” in the definition of coercion of a Government, which is part of the definition of terrorism. What is it that is “undue”? We will want to know why the “threatening harm to persons or property” definition has been amended to take out the reference to “known”, and simply leaves the reference to “belief”. We will want to know why preventive intervention is now proposed in relation to the seizure of property, and how we will protect New Zealanders from that approach—in other words: “We will get you for what we think you might be thinking.” How will that be prevented from infiltrating into other areas of our law? Just this week there has been a suggestion that we should be adopting the Australian approach to the seizure of assets, whether or not they are involved in the commission of crime, and that has been related to drug offences.

On the other side, I am interested to know why tracking devices are treated with such detailed attention. When a police operation is permitted to track people, without any kind of express permission, and when the police can use the expensive way of tracking—of humans taking over from each other when following people—I ask why we are so worried about tracking with a device. If it is a matter of intrusion into someone’s personal property or house there is an element of unlawful interference, but if the tracking device can follow in a way that does not involve some other otherwise unauthorised operation, I ask why there is all this attention to tracking. Certainly, I do not share the Green member’s suggestion that the Privacy Commissioner’s urging in that regard should be picked up. The Privacy Commissioner is an enemy to freedom in many respects in this country, and a grave nuisance. Nor do I share the concern about self-incrimination, and I will look forward to hearing the argument on that topic.

The ACT party wishes that we did not have to be hesitant about this bill, but we think that there are evils to be addressed. The Government has been dilly-dallying. For example, I have asked a series of questions of Ministers about whether security concerns have played any part in dictating our immigration policy. As far as I can tell from the answers, the answer is “No.” We have populations in this country who may well be seen as potential harbours for terrorist activity, and it appears that the Government has absolutely no concern about allowing the numbers of those people to be increased. We will look forward to the Committee stage for explanation.

Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) : This bill will be voted for by the Progressives, but it could well behove this Parliament to listen closely to the analysis of Keith Locke and the Green Party, instead of mounting the usual attack on Mr Locke for favouring terrorism. That attack is cowardly, on the part of many people in this House. I personally know that Keith Locke is not, and never has been, a supporter of terrorism. The points that he brought up are very important.

Hon Tony Ryall: Point of order—

Hon MATT ROBSON: If I could anticipate the member’s point, I say that I did not mean to call anybody a coward. I withdraw and apologise if I suggested that any member was a coward. I say that the attack is unwise if people take that line.

The points that Mr Locke brought up are very important. If we are to bring in legislation where there are stronger powers, we need, as a Parliament, to put that legislation through the test of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—the protection of the presumption of innocence—and to ensure that untrammelled power is not given.

I can say that I, personally, have wrestled with this bill. I have come down in favour of passing the bill, and I have advised the Progressives to come down in favour of passing it. But, in this regard, we will have a look at where it can be strengthened. There are two amendments in particular that I will be looking to, in order to seek support for. One amendment is on the use of tracking devices. The Progressives support the proposal of the Privacy Commissioner that the offence of using a tracking device without authorisation or consent be included in this bill.

Secondly, a tracking device can be used by one of the State authorities without a warrant for up to 72 hours before getting approval. I believe it is important to amend that provision to make it 24 hours, and not to give that 72-hour period. I believe that 24 hours for an unauthorised warrant is a reasonable time to allow the authorities to carry out what they want to do.

To return to my initial point, I think it is unwise—because viewpoints have been brought up by Mr Locke on behalf of the Green Party—to follow through and say that Mr Locke is pro-terrorist, or that he does not take account of the dangers New Zealand has faced, because it really ducks the real arguments, and becomes an ad hominem argument.

We should cast our minds back to a very similar period when there were proposals to rush through legislation on the basis that there was a great danger—that was the cold war period. I disagree with Peter Dunne that we have not had periods in New Zealand history where we have encroached on civil liberties. Of course the framework within New Zealand, particularly after the 19th century, has been a parliamentary democracy. Therefore, fundamental rights have been allowed. Nevertheless, a parliamentary democracy has high standards—or should have high standards—and there have been many periods in our history where we have fallen below those standards. I will point to some areas now where we are falling below the standards of upholding the presumption of innocence, and of the full gamut of rights being provided to everybody, no matter who they are, within New Zealand’s jurisdiction.

In the 19th century there was a wholesale trammelling of rights. We had a Suppression of Rebellion Act, which was used against Māori people who were legitimately defending their rights, and we are now going through and recognising that they were standing up for rights that were being pounced upon or abrogated.

Stephen Franks: They were rebels.

Hon MATT ROBSON: They were classed as rebels, exactly. They were defending rights that were being breached, and since that time, that has been recognised. That is one example from the 19th century.

If we move to the period of the First World War, we treated conscientious objectors abominably in New Zealand and violated their rights—rights that are now recognised in any civilised society. We did exactly the same in the Second World War, when there were a number of breaches of the civil rights of New Zealand citizens. In the cold war period the atmosphere of repression generated in New Zealand harmed many people’s lives in areas such as promotion, and in those people being able to exercise their full rights. One has only to think of the type of persecution that went on with Bill Sutch to realise that we did that in New Zealand. We have only to look at the excesses of the Security Intelligence Service so recently in the case of Choudhry and Small in Christchurch, to know that in New Zealand society we let loose agencies that breach our rights as citizens. In New Zealand we are not squeaky clean. I think it is an important part of this discussion, as we go through the Committee stage, to look at where we should strengthen the bill in terms of protecting the legal rights of New Zealanders, which in the end are everybody’s legal rights.

On the cold war analogy, I can say that when I first came to New Zealand I probably caught, as a teenager, the end of the cold war period. I can remember the atmosphere that was engendered. If anybody gave any criticism of New Zealand society, then that person was usually told to go back to Russia. My criticisms were usually just that the All Blacks could not play football very well, and I would be told to go back to Russia. The intolerant and intimidating atmosphere created in the cold war is being generated by conservative parties now about terrorism. They have a broad, blanket approach to what terrorism is, and if we are not careful then we will go into those areas of civil liberties that are so important to all of us, and use terrorism as the excuse for passing legislation that is actually aimed at suppressing individual rights.

In this bill, through the committee processes, we have already tightened up the definition of what is a legal strike and what are legal protest activities, so they are not confused with any criminal activities. I agree, in the main, with Professor Matthew Palmer’s criticism that we have sufficient powers to detect wrongdoing—whether it is classed as purely criminal or terrorist criminal—in the criminal legislation that we have. Biosecurity is the only area in which I think we need to take these extra steps. That is the one area in which I think it does not harm us to take the extra steps suggested. But in the main, without this bill, if anybody plans a terrorist act in New Zealand, then I think the authorities have sufficient powers under the legislation that we have now to undertake surveillance and investigation, and they have the power to arrest people. It does not matter if people say they are carrying out acts because they are members of a particular organisation and that these are their ideological beliefs, or if they have a purely mercenary criminal reason for doing it.

In the House I have always been impressed, when we have brought in legislation that increases police powers, that it has been former police officers who have warned us that we often do not need the extra powers. I remember that Ross Meurant, a former police inspector, did so as a member of the National Party. I remember that the Hon Clem Simich, who has police experience, raised questions on whether we needed extra police powers. I remember that Sir Douglas Graham also gave the same warnings on the increase of police powers.

The Ahmed Zaoui case is one in New Zealand where the question of terrorism has already led us to breach rights. There is no doubt about it. I have had talks with police in New Zealand about the threat assessment that was issued—which landed Zaoui in maximum security at Paremoremo—and they admitted that their threat assessment was a flawed document and inaccurate. The man has been framed. When he was in custody, and before lawyers were able to deal with him, he was questioned for hours by the Security Intelligence Service and the police, without any warning that he could have a lawyer with him or being told what his rights were.

At our border now, customs are violating the rights of New Zealand citizens and residents. Muslim New Zealanders—particularly if they are originally from Iraq—or if they are Sikh, are being stopped and detained up to 2 or 3 hours. There are three or four cases, which I have put to Ministers now, where people have been stopped and questioned, and have never been told of their right to ask for a lawyer, and that they do not have to answer questions. They are New Zealand citizens on New Zealand soil, and that right was breached.

My warning is that the bill is, to some extent, window dressing, which we need on the international stage. A lot of it is unnecessary, and we have the law now to enforce detection of wrongdoing, whether criminal or terrorist. On balance, there are protections in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but we need to look closely at the amendments. We should take seriously any objections or thoughts that are put forward in Parliament that ask whether the bill is necessary, because it is possibly breaching a right, particularly the presumption of innocence.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) : I say to Matt Robson, the Progressive member who has just resumed his seat, and who has just delivered us a monologue on citizens’ rights, that 2 weeks ago I stood beside the gaping hole in New York that was the twin towers of the World Trade Center. I say to Matt Robson, and to Keith Locke for that matter, what rights did the people have who had to jump out of those buildings 80 floors up—or however many floors it was—because they were being boiled to death and had no other choice?

Hon Matt Robson: Don’t use that sort of argument. It’s cheap.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Matt Robson says that is a cheap argument. If the authorities in the United States of America had tracked those terrorists, who had done nothing wrong at the time they entered the United States—they just had evil intent—then what would have happened to those people whose rights were totally destroyed as they threw themselves out into oblivion, 80 floors up?

Hon Matt Robson: Here we go!

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Matt Robson says: “Here we go”. Can he imagine the horror of that? What rights did the people in those aircraft have, as with terror they saw that they were going to be ploughed straight into those buildings and incinerated like that? In some ways, they were possibly the lucky ones. The ones who threw themselves out of the windows would live for seconds before they were crushed to death on hitting the ground, and those horrific seconds would have just been so awful.

Hon Matt Robson: Whose argument is that?

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: I say to Matt Robson that rights are a relative thing. I will stand for the rights of people to be protected from criminal terrorist activity—that is what this legislation is about. It is all very well talking about the niceties of the rights of people who would never contemplate these things, but the kind of mind that is involved in terrorism requires special action. People like the Progressive, Matt Robson, and Keith Locke, make me feel sick that they show such little concern for the rights of the Parker family who lost a son in Bali. What rights did those young people have as they were obliterated by that bomb?

It is so easy to stand in this Parliament and rabbit on about the rights we should protect. Of course we should make sure that people’s rights are protected as far as possible, but we should also make sure that our legislation can save this country from the effects of the kind of terrorism we saw in New York and Bali. We should make sure that our citizens never suffer from the absolute deprivation of rights that those people in New York suffered from. To stand beside that gaping hole, to read what is written on those simple fences beside it, is very, very moving. I suggest that Matt Robson and Keith Locke go and do it, and just reflect on the rights of the people who died that day. I suggest that they compare that with their concerns about people being tracked in this country, should our authorities believe that those people came into this country with the kind of evil intent that the terrorists who went into America had.

As we went through the select committee process with this legislation, it was interesting to note that so few Government members had taken any notice of it when it was introduced. When people came along to make submissions, it was quite a circus as Labour members suddenly realised that this bill had some quite wide provisions in it—that it enhanced general police powers, especially their powers to track people and get access to their computers. It was quite amazing to see the way Labour members had not even realised that. It kind of shows the lack of coordination within the Labour Government that its own members did not even understand what its legislation was doing.

To add to the circus, on 31 July this year the select committee was about to deliberate on this legislation, and I had to remind the Labour members that they had invited Professor Matthew Palmer to make a submission. The select committee had not even given Professor Palmer the courtesy of considering his submission. It shows the seriousness with which Labour members addressed their own bill, when I, an Opposition member on the committee, had to point out to them that if they deliberated on it right then, they would not even have considered Professor Palmer’s submission—after he had gone to all the trouble of responding to a Labour member’s request that he make a submission on the bill.

Some provisions in this bill do enhance police powers and give them greater power to track people. It has some really important powers to protect us better against biosecurity threats. It is fascinating the way attitudes were flushed out as the select committee considered this legislation, and we have heard it in the debate tonight. It is fascinating to read the commentary in the bill as reported back from the select committee, especially the Green minority view. The Greens are concerned that this legislation might inhibit their mates’ rights to protest in this country in a way that causes major economic loss to one or more persons. What is amazing about that is that the Greens seem to believe that their rights to just trample all over other people’s rights should have priority. That is what they are worried about in this legislation. Keith Locke said it in the House tonight, and it is in his minority report on page 13. It is right there in black and white that Keith Locke is concerned that this legislation might reduce his rights to trample over other people’s rights through protest action—that somehow the protest action of Green members is more legitimate than other people’s rights.

I find that offensive, but not as offensive as their lack of concern for the rights of people who have been the victims of terrorism. They have such distorted minds if they think their rights to protest in a manner that destroys other people’s well-being and other people’s rights should go uninhibited. If this legislation required them to think about causing major economic loss to other people, maybe that would not be a bad thing. I have no problem with protest action, so long as it does not trample over other people’s rights in this country. From a reading of the Green Party’s minority report, that is something it does not seem to understand.

Finally, we have heard a number of people say they that would like to see the Privacy Commissioner’s draft amendment incorporated into this legislation—an amendment that would limit the use of tracking devices. The reason the select committee did not incorporate it is that it is a significant issue on which the public have been given no chance to make submissions. It is not that the select committee said the Privacy Commissioner was wrong; it is just that it believed that the public of this country should have the chance to make submissions on an issue as significant as that. I think the select committee recommended that the Government should pick up the issue for the future, but before it is included in law in this country, the public should have the chance to make submissions on it.

While this legislation is not perfect, National supports it because we believe it is important for New Zealand to carry out its international obligations with regard to the protection not just of the citizens of New Zealand but, in a globalised world, of all citizens from the evil of terrorism. This Counter-Terrorism Bill implements United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 and various other international conventions that New Zealand is obliged to implement in its domestic law. It has the support of the National Party. We recognise it is not perfect, but we believe in protecting people from the evil of terrorism.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) : On behalf of the Labour Party, I rise to support this bill.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) : I thank the member who spoke before me. He has given me a great deal of material to consider in my contribution, this evening, and I thank him for that. The Counter-Terrorism Bill bill essentially reflects the unfortunate international environment we now live in. Although I was not on the select committee that heard the submissions and reported back, I do have some fairly strong views on issues relating to this bill, in two capacities: first as National’s defence spokesperson, and, second, as somebody who stood on top of the World Trade Center in August, prior to the September terrorist attack. Those photographs from standing on the top of those World Trade Center buildings are slightly eerie, at best, when I now look back on them.

This bill is really about New Zealand doing its bit. This bill is about recognising that one of this country’s obligations in being part of the international community is to take a stand on issues that are serious and difficult, and that require the commitment of the country. I often listen with great interest to those in this Parliament who promote multilateralism and are less concerned with the sovereign rights of particular nations. Those members believe that bodies such as the United Nations will be the panacea for all the problems that go on in the world, yet when asked to front up to fulfil resolutions, such as Resolution 1373 adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 28 September 2001, they do not believe that that is easily done.

I say to those members they cannot have it both ways. If they believe in multilateralism, and believe that organisations such as the United Nations are worthwhile, and if resolutions are passed by those bodies, then part of belonging to that international community of interest is to play one’s part and carry out the effect of the resolutions. I note that members in the House who speak against that type of activity are the first to suggest that, if the ILO makes a recommendation, this Parliament should plough into and pick up on those recommendations and implement them for New Zealand. If the human rights committee of the United Nations makes recommendations, there are members in this House who would have those implemented in New Zealand lickety-split.

I say to those members that this is the same thing, because if they believe in the concept of multilateralism, if they believe in the concept of the United Nations—it is no secret that I have serious reservations about the role of the United Nations in many respects, particularly on security issues—they cannot have it both ways. If they believe that multilateralism is the way forward, then that brings with it certain obligations that members of this House have to fulfil, some of which they may find unpleasant. That is the nature of the beast, unfortunately. One cannot take out just the good.

I was not surprised to see Phil Goff, on 6 September of this year, finally concede a fact that members on this side have known for months and even years. He said to the Christchurch Press on 6 September that we no long live in a benign strategic environment. Well, members will recall that this is an issue that I have raised several times, during question time, with the Hon Mark Burton. Finally—about 6 weeks ago, if my memory serves me correctly— Mr Burton, Minister of Defence, stood up and used that time-honoured phrase of the Prime Minister’s that “things have moved on”; that the “benign strategic environment” no longer existed—on which the Prime Minister had based her entire international foreign policy, which was, of course, grounded on completely the wrong premise. But Phil Goff, on 6 September this year, finally said: “Yes, the world is a less benign place, because of the rise of terrorism.”

Well, that means a couple of things. Firstly, it means that the decision to scrap the strike wing of the Air Force was wrong. Secondly, it means the decision to have our armed forces concentrate largely on being a peacekeeping unit is wrong. It means that there are some serious considerations that this Government should be giving to the armed forces, and the way in which they operate, when senior Ministers of this Government, finally, after 4 years of prying from this side of the House, have conceded that we no longer live in Helen Clark’s so-called benign strategic environment. This so-called benign strategic environment, which this Government refused to move from after September 11, is also a position it refused to move from after the Bali bombings. Only after the attacks in Jakarta did this Government finally decide that it was going to shift its view on whether we lived in a benign strategic environment.

What worries me most is that we now have an entire foreign policy built around the premise that we live in a benign strategic environment. We have defence forces and their capabilities based around the premise that we live in a benign strategic environment. Finally, the Hon Mark Burton and the Hon Phil Goff have said, either in this House or in the media: “Actually, we got it wrong. We now concede that the world has moved on and that we do not live in a benign strategic environment.” In fact, that brings with it a whole lot of responsibility that we should be encouraging this Government to take up, and that, frankly, does not involve using our defence forces as an instrument of foreign policy when the Prime Minister makes a foreign affairs gaffe with the US, but using thoughtful, strategic planning when it comes to conducting our relationships with regional and international partners.

I do have some concerns about the bill itself. I am a bit worried, I have to say, that the police will be able to force suspects to open their computers, and reveal their passwords, PIN numbers, and encryption codes. That is not something I find particularly palatable. That is probably because of my short career as a criminal lawyer, on the duty solicitors’ roster on a Monday morning. I am not sure that the police having that type of power sits comfortably with the overriding principles of the Counter-Terrorism Bill—the more foreign policy, regional, bilateral, and international relationships that have to be honoured, and indeed the relationship that New Zealand must continue to have with the UN.

I was concerned to read that the Law Society, the Society of Authors—less with regard to the Association of University Staff, to be quite frank—all raised concerns about those libertarian issues, that there are some civil rights that need to be looked at pretty carefully when this type of legislation is passing through the House. No doubt we will look at that carefully during the Committee stage.

But I return to my main and opening point. I urge the Government to rethink its current commitment to its isolationist policy, with regard to these issues, and to think seriously about what this means for its responsibilities in the world. We simply cannot ignore the fact that we are not living in 1974 any more. There are not people walking around wearing beads and polo-necked jerseys, sitting on beanbags, and listening to John Lennon. Times have moved on. The simple fact of the matter is that if we are going to play a role, play our part, and if we are going to honour our obligations in those multilateral environments like the UN that members opposite hold so dear, then I say to the Government that that comes at a price.

The words are here for the Counter-Terrorism Bill. Let us now see some action in implementing those things in a way that is constructive and allows New Zealand to play a decent role in international affairs and foreign policy. I say to members of the Labour Government that it is not too late. They should stop fluffing around, and make some spending decisions that will equate to the words in this bill.