Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : The Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill is an important bill, and I want to put a little bit of context around it. There has been a great deal of misinformation in the public sector, I must admit, aided and abetted by the Green Party, and its member present, who does know the truth of this, based on what occurred in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I want to make the point crystal clear that this legislation did not come to this Parliament as a result of any recent events. I notice that members from the Māori Party are noting that. I want to make clear to them that at no stage was that ever conceived, considered, or thought an issue.

There is a particular reason why we have to deal with this bill now, which is that the UN designations of al-Qaeda and the like—and they are referred to in the Supplementary Order Papers—are all about to expire. These designations have to be renewed. New Zealand, surely, can hardly be in a situation of being a defaulter nation and of not enforcing United Nations Security Council resolutions against al-Qaeda and its ilk. That is what has motivated the legislation at this particular time. There has to be a mechanism to renew what are literally hundreds of designations of al-Qaeda and its numerous offshoots, and those persons associated with them, all of which designations have gone through an exhaustive process in the United Nations Security Council. New Zealand has deep and profound obligations to implement those resolutions. I think that after a bit of reflection, most parties—in fact, I would like to think all parties—will recognise the importance of doing that. What is the alternative? Is the alternative that New Zealand will essentially opt out of the United Nations system—that we will somehow become a nation that is careless and that disregards our fundamental obligations to all other nations to deal with the most extreme forms of international terrorism?

So, faced with that situation, Parliament has had to address it. The issue was how best to address the renewal of those designations. If we did nothing, each and every one of them would have to go to a High Court for consideration. The problem with that process is that that is an adjudicative process, and people make submissions, and so forth. That is entirely inappropriate for UN-designated organisations. The international community, including New Zealand, has already made a decision about those groups and, frankly, there is no contest about them. So New Zealand has an obligation to continue those designations as, in a sense, an operation of Government.

The issue that motivated the select committee, in detail, was the issue of how best to continue those designations. The legislation proposed that this should be done by the Prime Minister. I have to say—and members on the select committee know this—that that exercised us to a great degree. We were concerned about vesting all that power into a single individual, and I, amongst others, said that we have to be able to find some method of ensuring there is, at minimum, a reporting to Parliament of that. The method that has been chosen is the use of Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee. That committee has the most senior members of this Parliament on it, drawn from across the House. I say that that committee probably should be reviewed. Its membership could be reviewed to make it, perhaps, a little more reflective, but that is an issue for another time. The select committee suggested to the Government that there needed to be a change to provide a better level of accountability than the vesting of that decision-making power entirely into the person of the Prime Minister. The committee, by consensus, agreed that the Intelligence and Security Committee was the right way to do that at this stage, and in the future maybe that could be strengthened further.

But I want to come back to the very clear point that the legislation has nothing to do with the events that have occurred in recent weeks. The public of New Zealand needs to have that assurance. This legislation is entirely related to New Zealand’s obligations under the United Nations charter. I would like to think that every political party understands those obligations. Yes, they may have quibbles about details, and issues of that kind. But surely no members of a political party are going to stand up in this Chamber today and say: “We should ignore the United Nations designations.” I would like to know that about any political party, and in particular the Green Party and the Māori Party, because I know they are interested in this legislation. Surely those members will not get up and say: “We are completely uninterested in what the United Nations does. We are completely uninterested in New Zealand’s responsibilities to the international community.” Frankly, that would be extraordinary. If that is the proposition these members put forward to the public of New Zealand, we would have to ask ourselves the basic question of whether they have earned the right, in that situation, to participate in future Governments of New Zealand.

Surely it is a fundamental responsibility as a good international citizen—and New Zealand does take pride in being that—and surely it is one our fundamental obligations that we uphold United Nations Security Council resolutions. These resolutions have literally the force of law. They are not advisory and they are not just suggestions; they are obligations on members of the United Nations. They are not discretionary. So when the United Nations Security Council, under chapter 7, makes a resolution that states: “These entities are international terrorists and States must deal with those entities.”—and in this instance it was actually about the use of finance and things of that nature by those organisations—New Zealand has a legal responsibility under international law to act.

I want to say this directly to the two parties whose members have spoken most on this bill. The obligation that we implement United Nations Security Council resolutions that have mandatory force impinges on all parliamentarians. The alternative is international anarchy. I cannot believe that those parties would want that.

The select committee took its responsibilities on this bill very, very carefully. We had a wide-ranging discussion, which included all members of the committee, and we took on board suggestions from all members of the committee, including those from the Green member Mr Keith Locke. His comments and views were not just ignored. Some of the points that he raised were taken on board, including the need to have some level of accountability of the Prime Minister. At the present moment we have said that that accountability will come from the Intelligence and Security Committee. Mostly due to the force of time, that was done. We do think that is an issue that needs to be looked at more deeply, and we have made reference to that in the commentary on the bill.

This legislation is serious stuff. It is amongst the most important things that this Parliament does. It is not a time, and should not be a time, to wrap some cheap opportunistic approach around this issue. I know that those parties have issues, and I do understand those issues. Perhaps we will end up at least touching on them later in the debate. But let us not try to wrap this bill and our responsibilities under the United Nations Security Council in issues that have occurred this week.

I want to make it very clear that National does support this legislation. We believe in a world where law prevails and where people have an assurance in their international travels, and so forth, that terrorists are being dealt with in a proper and lawful way. We support this bill because we think it upholds New Zealand’s responsibilities as an international citizen.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The last speaker, Wayne Mapp, said that the events of the past couple of weeks have nothing to do with this bill, or vice versa. In one sense that is true, in that this bill proceeded through Parliament by its own timetable and rationale. But it has a lot to do with the events of the past couple of weeks, in the sense that when the original Terrorism Suppression Act was put through in 2002 there were a huge number of submissions critical of it. Many of them were from non-governmental organisations that were fearful that they and their members could be caught under that Act. Those same organisations are fearful today that maybe the Act will be applied in the current situation. The very questions of the right to dissent and not to be given a penalty for one’s political views were very much in the original debate back in 2002, and they are very much part of the public debate today.

Wayne Mapp said that the time is coming up for the renewal, under the original Act, of the UN designations of terrorist organisations. But it is quite clear—and there have always been submitters on this, both in the original Act discussion and on this bill—that the High Court is perfectly capable of renewing all those definitions if they are still valid. They do not need to go into a lot of high detail. In fact, the original Act says that evidence from the United Nations is to be deemed as sufficient unless there is evidence to the contrary. So unless there is evidence to the contrary on any of those UN designations of al-Qaeda and the Taliban that are currently on our list and up for renewal, the High Court does not really have to spend much time on it at all, in a practical sense. What is so wrong—and the Green Party has this in our minority report—is to cut the court out of it altogether so that the Prime Minister, representing the executive branch of Government, does not only the original designating but also the review of those designations 3 years later and a renewal of them if appropriate. So that is the real situation. The problem with the so-called war on terror as a whole is that it has moved things out of the hands of the judiciary and into the hands of the executive in an excessive way.

Wayne Mapp says that there is no real problem in our accepting the UN designations automatically into our law. Well, there is a problem because it has been shown that the counter-terrorism committee hanging off the UN Security Council has made a lot of mistakes. It is a governmental system of Governments putting the terrorist groups on this list, and they do make mistakes. If the United States, for example, wrongly put Wayne Mapp on the list and the counter-terrorism committee said: “Yep, Wayne Mapp is a terrorist and he has to go on the list.”, then that list comes through to New Zealand. Even though we know Wayne Mapp is not a terrorist, under the proposal in the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill Wayne Mapp would have to be put on our list and all of his assets seized immediately. If he were an employer employing 5,000 people, that whole business might go down the tubes because of a lack of rationality and a lack of application of international human rights law giving justice and due process to someone like Wayne Mapp, if he were deemed to be a terrorist.

Wayne Mapp says that we have to obey the UN. There are two things we have to obey in this situation. One is the UN Security Council decisions under chapter 7, which are obligatory on Governments, but parallel with that is international human rights law, which gives due process and justice to anyone. Those are parallel processes. In my Supplementary Order Paper I specifically mention the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which might protect Wayne Mapp in the situation of the UN wrongly designating him to be a terrorist. Supplementary Order Paper 158 in my name would protect him and allow a situation of due process to apply.

I will go through some of the other provisions set out on the Supplementary Order Paper. As I said before, I am returning to the original Act and allowing evidence to the contrary to be brought into consideration of UN-originated designations. I also have an amendment omitting clause 6, which sets out a new offence called a terrorist act. The Law Society—that very reputable body—was quite clear on the problems that that new offence would cause for the judiciary, running a whole parallel set of crimes. In any crime deemed to be a “terrorist” one, there is an underlying Crimes Act offence as well. The Law Society said that the new offence of a terrorist act would appear to have the potential effect of greatly increasing the penalty imposed on persons who are convicted of committing a terrorist act where the underlying crime is relatively minor. So I am attempting, through this Supplementary Order Paper, to remove the term “terrorist act” from the bill because it is unnecessary; there are other underlying crimes—murder, kidnapping, or whatever one likes.

One of the problems with the definition of “terrorist act” in the original bill that was brought up in the hearings before the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee was that it was very broad. I have also introduced an amendment proposed by Greenpeace during the select committee process to amend the provision where someone could be deemed to have committed a terrorist act if he or she caused serious disruption of an infrastructure facility in a way likely to endanger human life—that is, if he or she did not have any intention whatsoever of endangering human life; it could have been just some non-violent act of disruptive civil disobedience. The Greenpeace suggestion, which I have incorporated in my Supplementary Order Paper, is that there has to be an intention to endanger human life. So I am trying to tighten up the definition of a “terrorist act” to meet the real situation that most people would accept—anything that is really terrorist has to intentionally endanger human life. I hope members will support that part of my Supplementary Order Paper.

Another part of Supplementary Order Paper 158 is to omit clause 7, because it repeals section 8(2) of the original Act. Section 8(2) provides that if funds that end up somewhere in relation to a terrorist group or its offshoots were intended for the purpose of advocating democratic government or the protection of human rights, then that is a defence. That should remain a defence, particularly as New Zealanders have a long history of supporting anti-apartheid groups overseas. Nelson Mandela was clearly a leader of a terrorist organisation, as defined in this Act; there were terrorist elements in the African National Congress, but New Zealanders gave money to it. Under this bill they would automatically, by giving money to Hamas, or whatever, be deemed to be financing terrorism. Even if the money was meant for Hamas’ social programmes in Gaza, they would be in a situation similar to those—[Interruption] If New Zealanders were giving money to a Hamas group that was trying to establish an independent Palestinian State politically—that is, they did not have any intent of funding violence—they could be caught under the provision in this bill, which is why I think we have to go back to section 8(2) of the original Act, under which there was a defence if people gave the money for the purpose of advocating democratic government or the protection of human rights.

I also have a provision on Supplementary Order Paper 158 that clause 12 be omitted. Under clause 12, participation in a terrorist group offence, which carries a heavy penalty of up to 14 years, means that a person can be deemed to be part of that group even if he or she did not really have knowledge that that group was a terrorist one. The bill introduces a provision of recklessness, which I think loosens it very much. It could lead to many people who are on the fringes of a particular group that might engage in some criminal activity being caught.

The Green Party has several amendments, and the other amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 158 is to allow for a further review of the original Terrorism Suppression Act.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) :Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Kia ora tātouitēneiahiahi. I would just clarify, in case it is up for question, the Māori Party’s perspective in respect of the notion of terrorism as a name in this bill, the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. First, the Māori Party is clear that we have to take terrorism as a notion seriously. Second, we believe in the rule of law, and in the desire on the part of the forces of this country to protect us from the notion of terrorism should it arrive in Aotearoa. Should those people rightly charged under that particular label follow a path in law, so be it—just as we would expect that those who carry firearms without a licence, for example, are liable for the consequences that might come from the law moving appropriately to deal with them.

I think one issue that has not been addressed in respect of the discussion around this word “terrorism” as part of this bill is the possible impacts or downstream effects on communities, and, indeed, the whole country in terms of this title “terrorism”. I will put it in this context. Not too long ago the country was awoken by way of reports and so on across our newspapers, televisions, news media, and radio that the terrorism threat was alive and well in Aotearoa, and that, in fact, one community in Aotearoa was the subject of actions to deal with the notion of terrorism in Aotearoa. What the Māori Party has attempted to do in the recent past by way of questions that we have asked is to make the House, and, indeed, Aotearoa, aware of the major impact of any move whatsoever under the banner of anti-terrorism, although still taking it seriously. I can tell the Committee that in my constituency, as I go around the communities that have seen some of the actions taken under the banner of anti-terrorism recently, one iwi in particular feels that it has been labelled not just in the last week or in the last 2 or 3 weeks but, in fact, forever as a tribal nation that has engendered and promoted the notion of terror. I think that we have to be very careful in any actions that we want to take in respect of this particular bill and the primary Act because the consequences down the line may well be very dire, not just for those tribal nations, if it happens to be one, or for the nation but for the next generation in Aotearoa.

When I opened the discussion during the second reading I tried to tell the House that in a sense there are three ways of looking at this bill. One was the political context, and at the time we were discussing the repeal of sedition. The second context was with regard to one tribal nation awaiting the Waitangi Tribunal report—in that case it was the Tūhoe nation. In terms of the social context, I talked about some of the stories that have come to me about the actions taken by the authorities charged with protecting the nation under the banner of anti-terrorism. I gave a number of examples.

The first point that I want to make in terms of the discussion is that we need to be careful in respect of the label of terrorism—in particular, I noted the notion of the Tūhoe nation being possibly branded with the title “Tūhoe: terrorist iwi.”

Second, I want to make a point around the discussion of the word “suppression”, which is in the title of the bill. I did a bit of research, in preparing for my kōrero today, about the notion of suppression. One definition is “to forcibly put an end to or to prevent from being expressed or published.” We have a major concern that there will be suppression of not merely terrorism but much legitimate debate on, and challenge to, decisions and actions of the Government. There has always been a concern from the Māori community that some of its members could be targeted under the labels of “Māori activist” and “radical”. That is some of the feedback we have had.

The 2002 bill initially had provisions prohibiting crowds from gathering for protest purposes. So the question we ask is this. Who else has had their views suppressed? It is useful for us to look at the campaign Operation 8 as an example of the scattergun approach that will be used to suppress terrorism. Some of the people who have come to my office and to our offices in the Māori Party have talked about the organic farmer in Taupō whose son-in-law hails from Rūātoki, or perhaps the pensioner in Tauranga whose house was raided on 16 October.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry to interrupt the member. The member cannot talk about individual cases associated with this case.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I just wanted to make it clear that these are examples of things that have come to my office. These issues are not before any court at this point in time.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member just needs to come back to the bill. If he is talking about the issue within the bill, he is OK.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: Speaking to that point, I say that I started by talking about the whole notion of terrorism, and then I went on to the notion of suppression. What I am trying to talk about—which is what I started off talking about—is the term “suppression” and how the impacts of that might flow through in terms of this bill. I have used some concrete examples to do that, I hope.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I assure the member that that is OK, but I do not want the member to in any way touch on current issues before a court.

Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I think it is important to get clarity here. Clearly, we do not want to talk about cases that are before the court. But if what is being talked about relates to police actions that did not result in any court cases—and in that Tauranga case, for instance, no charges ensued—it is not, I think, out of bounds in the context of this debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is right. It is all right as long as it is in the context of this bill.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: Again, I just refer back to the notion of our interpretation of suppression. I was talking about the idea that a number of constituents have come through my office recently in respect of the wider context of what has happened in Aotearoa recently. I am using these examples to clearly illustrate that a lot of it does very much come down to the notion of definition, particularly with regard to this bill. In fact, Supplementary Order Paper 158 in Mr Keith Locke’s name, which we will talk about further on in this discussion, will give us some direction around that.

As I said, there are a number of examples, and I talked about them earlier. Dr Pita Sharples this afternoon referred to a whānau returning to Waiōhau on 17 October to tangihanga. I have seen some points that have come through my office in terms of a minister in Wellington, who, unfortunately, as a teacher, was hauled out from his class, from his school, and detained because of suspicion of terrorism. Those are some of the examples that we have to be careful of. I just wanted to make the point that the title of this bill, the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, has created fear amongst the general community that their democratic rights to express their views are jeopardised, that their right to freedom of speech will be threatened, and that their independent opinions will be prevented from being expressed or published.

Dr Wayne Mapp talked earlier about the United Nations, and he suggested that the Māori Party and indeed the Green Party were, in some way or another, speaking against the United Nations’ recommendations. I would like to make it clear that it is one thing to speak against the United Nations, and it is another thing to turn round and, all of sudden, under the banner of supporting the United Nations come up with some extensions to a bill that is already in place. We have talked in our speeches previously about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and this Government not supporting that particular claim, whereas under this bill the idea, it seems, is to support the United Nations. So it is almost a contradiction in that sense.

I want to move on a bit and say that the concerns amongst the community about the extent of this notion of suppression have resulted in widespread action in some communities in opposition to this focus in the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. It is unfortunate that things have come around at the same time. There have been the actions that have taken place in various places throughout the motu—in Rotorua and Whakatāne—recently, the second reading of the bill, and, of course, the focus on the United Nations and on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. So there has been a particular focus on this bill, and all manner of New Zealanders have been speaking out about it. The Human Rights Commission has been receiving official complaints from Māori and Pākehā about some action taken by police recently, and at Tapu Te Ranga Marae in Island Bay, last weekend gone, there was a nationwide hui to discuss human rights. Again, all of this was in the context of the bill we are considering at the moment—the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill.

I just want to make sure that the Committee is aware that this bill has serious connotations down the line. Yes, it is important that we consider the notion of terrorism throughout Aotearoa, but we want to make sure that people have the right to go about their lawful business and to express themselves in a way that is appropriate for them.

DIANNE YATES (Labour) : I wish to speak in the Committee stage of this bill. I wish to thank the previous speaker, Te Ururoa Flavell, for his comments, but point out that those comments are not necessarily based on what is in the bill but on some of the fears that people may have about the bill, which were expressed when people made their submissions. The select committee considered those very carefully, and as the member who has just resumed his seat finally pointed out in his conclusion, we looked very carefully at the balance between protecting the rights of New Zealanders and protecting New Zealanders’ safety and freedoms. It is often a very, very fine line.

There has been discussion about the United Nations, and New Zealand’s adopting of United Nations principles and lists. We remind people once again that New Zealand was very much involved in the formation of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I point out also that comments were made by Mr Keith Locke about New Zealanders being involved in giving money to organisations like the African National Congress. That was discussed at the select committee, and the member was part of that discussion. We were assured by officials as well that the bill would not hinder that type of donation. So I think that as we listen to people’s fears we have to be careful about what the bill actually contains.

I would make another point in terms of Dr Mapp’s comment about the extension of national designations. The commentary on the bill, on which the select committee voted and agreed, states: “While recommending that those clauses of the bill regarding the extension of designations for non-United Nations-list terrorist entities should be enacted largely as proposed, we recognise the concern raised in a number of submissions about the concentration of responsibility in a single individual”. But the committee also said it realised that: “initial decisions to designate, involve judgements about national security that are more properly made by the Executive than the High Court.” Then the committee said unanimously: “However, to ensure transparency we recommend that clause 21 should include in section 35 of the Act a requirement that, after making an order of a new designation under subsections (2) or (3), the Prime Minister must report to the Intelligence and Security Committee on the proposed renewal.” The select committee as a whole agreed that the executive should properly make that decision. I just want to point out, as we go through the Committee stage of this bill, that it was a unanimous decision of the select committee.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : I rise in support of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, but make it very clear that there is no possible way we will be agreeing with any part of Keith Locke’s Supplementary Order Paper and its proposals. He is overlooking the fundamental importance of measuring the balance of rights for the individual against the balance of rights for our community. I think that is a very, very important element that Mr Locke—and our colleague in the Māori Party, also—is overlooking. It is really important that this amendment bill is passed and progressed, because the legislation has been out of sorts with our obligations to the United Nations and to our neighbours for the last 4 years.

Although the National Party supports the bill, we also have strong doubts as to whether the legislation’s enactment will result in a more vigilant stance against the risk of terrorism by the New Zealand authorities. I say that because since the 2005 review of key clauses of this bill, National members have constantly expressed deep concern that although we have upheld New Zealand’s obligations under the United Nations Security Council’s Resolution 1267 to designate as terrorist entities in New Zealand those entities that have previously been identified as al-Qaeda or Taliban - related entities by the United Nations Security Council, the Prime Minister has still yet to designate a single terrorist entity under United Nations Resolution 1373—that is, a non-al-Qaeda or Taliban - related terrorist group designated at the initiative of United Nations member nations. Through this period, our Australian colleagues across the Tasman have designated 88 terrorist entities. On the other side of the Pacific, in Canada, the Canadians have designated a further 50 terrorist entities under similar legislation.

The Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 provides a very useful set of tools for the authorities here in New Zealand to protect our community against the threat of terrorism. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about a threat to our community, and we have to balance that in opposition to the rights of the individual. Inevitably, that judgment will be a subjective one. I think there is the possibility of a threat to civil liberties for a designated person to be overridden by the greater concern of the whole community. That is a constant balance, and that is why most of us are in this Parliament: to help make judgments on that issue.

A number of submitters who came to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to discuss this issue with us—Rosslyn Noonan and others—were concerned that the information that might be held about people should be made fully available to them. We in the National Party are very happy that the Prime Minister—who would normally be the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service, and who I know is regularly briefed by the officials engaged in that work—makes this decision, provided she—

Eric Roy: He or she.

JOHN HAYES: —provided he or she accounts to this Parliament as to what he or she is doing. The fact that no terrorist designations at all have occurred under Resolution 1373 I think is a matter of profound concern for the people in my electorate and for the National Party, which I represent. Eighty-eight countries have been designated by Australia in the last 5 years; we have done nothing.

Hon Judith Tizard: 88 countries!

JOHN HAYES: Eighty-eight individuals.

Hon Judith Tizard: You said “countries”.

JOHN HAYES: Yes, I was checking to make sure the Minister was awake. In the case of Canada, at least 50 individual entities have been identified. There has been no credible explanation given to the select committee as to the reason for this total failure on the part of the Government.

I would like to refer to the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, and particularly to section 5, which is where a terrorist act is defined. This is what Keith Locke and his Green colleagues need to understand. They should go back and read that part of the Act very, very carefully. The Act makes it very clear in subsection (2): “An act falls within this subsection if it is intended to cause, in any 1 or more countries, 1 or more of the outcomes specified in subsection (3), and is carried out for the purpose of advancing an ideological, political, or religious cause, and with the following intention: (a) to induce terror in a civilian population;” and, secondly, “to unduly compel or to force a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act.”

Keith Locke: It’s “or”, not “and”.

JOHN HAYES: I said “or”. It is all very well for those of us living here in New Zealand to think that that seems a bit over the top. But I well remember walking the streets of Istanbul, doing my job as a New Zealand representative in that country, and witnessing a bomb going off within 100 metres of me. People were killed.

Hone Harawira: This is not Istanbul.

JOHN HAYES: This may not be Istanbul but it is New Zealand, and we are part of a global community. The risks are very much here, as they are in Istanbul or anywhere else. The Act particularly states the point of taking issue with people in this legislation is if they intend to cause “the death of, or other serious bodily injury to, 1 or more persons (other than a person carrying out the act):” or if the intention of the person is the “destruction of, or serious damage to, property of great value or importance,”. Imagine a bomb being placed, for example, in an aircraft in our sky or on a ferry in the middle of Cook Strait. Untold damage could be done to our community by such an action, and it would not be especially difficult to do it.

Section 5 of the Act talks about “serious interference with, or serious disruption to, an infrastructure facility, if likely to endanger human life:” or—and this could happen in New Zealand—the “introduction or release of a disease-bearing organism,”. Imagine if somebody came into this country and released the organism for foot-and-mouth disease—

Keith Locke: Calicivirus.

JOHN HAYES: Or calicivirus. Yes, that has been done. But let us think about foot-and-mouth disease, because that would destroy our economy overnight. It is all very well for the Green Party members to sit back there and irresponsibly laugh and joke and think that this bill is just an infringement on human rights, but the community has rights in this country. I believe in upholding the greater good of the community, because that is what the people in the Wairarapa expect me to do. Those people are New Zealanders, and they do not want a wishy-washy arrangement in this country whereby we have legislation, we have signed up to arrangements at the United Nations, and we have done nothing about them.

The point of this bill and of the work of our select committee over the last 9 months has been to encourage the Government into action to define very clearly who is a terrorist and to meet our international obligations. Belonging to the United Nations means we must meet our international obligations, and we must in this country sign up to the rules and decisions of the United Nations Security Council. That is simply what this legislation is doing. Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of this bill.

RON MARK (NZ First) : I actually was not going to take a call because, quite frankly, for New Zealand First this is a pretty simple bill; we just need to pass it and get on with business. But some of the comments that have been made deserve a response. To those members who would say that this is not Istanbul, and that the types of acts that Mr Hayes so clearly speaks of will not happen, and will never happen, in New Zealand and, therefore, we do not need such legislation as this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, I would say that there was a time when people would have laughed out loud and ridiculed anyone who suggested that it was possible that one day agents from a friendly country—France, which is a country in whose soil thousands of our Defence Force personnel lie buried, having given their lives defending the freedom of that nation; Māori and Pākehā, side by side—would come to New Zealand in a clandestine, covert operation supported and backed up 100 percent by the Government, the defence force, and the intelligence agencies of France and would blow up a ship moored in our harbour. People would have laughed at that suggestion.

Hone Harawira: And then released by the New Zealand Government.

RON MARK: Now the member Hone Harawira is admitting that he knows such an act happened, yet the very same member is sitting here saying that these things do not happen. I would tell Mr Harawira that he should make up his mind.

Hone Harawira: Point of order. At no time did I say that these things do not happen in this country—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I would just remind members that when they stand and call for a point of order, I call their name then.

Hone Harawira: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. My point of order was that at no time did I say that those activities had never happened here. I simply pointed out that this was not Istanbul.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): It is not a point of order to correct something that a member has said; it is a debating point. We would go on forever with points of order if we did that.

RON MARK: There is the point. The guy has been here long enough. He draws $110,000 a year to know the rules of this House, and he cannot even raise a point of order because he is embarrassed by the imputation of the comment that he made, and he seeks to divert members from it. I would simply say to that member that his imputation was—

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I will ask the member to come back to the bill.

RON MARK: The bill seeks to deal with those acts, and anyone in this Chamber who says that those acts are not possible is ignoring history. That is why we move on such legislation as this bill. Let me clarify something that really happened in New Zealand. This is a quote. This was said in New Zealand by a New Zealander: “When I first saw the planes fly into the towers, I jumped for joy. I was so happy that at long last capitalism was under attack.” That might sound like fantasy, or like the rantings of a lunatic who got some sort of perverse pleasure out of seeing thousands of people killed in the terrorist attacks on the twin towers, but it was from a speech given by Annette Sykes to the Green Party at an anti-war meeting held in Rotorua on 9 November 2001.

Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. That is a point of misrepresentation. I was at that particular meeting. It was not a Green Party meeting, and I think the member has his quote wrong, as well.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will please be seated. Misrepresentation is to the person, and it was not to do with the person.

RON MARK: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. You have had three points of order that are not points of order, Madam Chairperson, and they have been raised deliberately to break up my speech. I ask for the protection of the Chair from spurious points of order from people who do not know the Standing Orders.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is quite correct and I would just remind members that this is a Committee debate, which is really about the bill. If members stick to the bill and to the clauses in the bill, then there will be no problem.

RON MARK: It is in speaking to the bill that members have made comments in the debate, and it gives people the opportunity to comment on those points that have been allowed to be made in the debate. It probably would be helpful if people followed the Chair’s guidance, but that was a statement. How are we in New Zealand First meant to view this bill? I will seek leave to table this document, but should we in New Zealand First view it in the light of the fact that people make statements such as that one? New Zealand First looks at this bill with possibly a different view from that of some other members who have spoken in this Chamber and who believe that some things are not possible. We believe that they are. We could take, for example, another statement made by a member of Parliament, who said: “If they tried that sort of [expletive] over here, the boys would be in the streets with guns and I would be with them.” That was said by a member of Parliament—a member of this House.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Which one?

RON MARK: That was actually said by Hone Harawira, in respect of the activities of the Howard Government in the Aboriginal territories. Statements like that convince New Zealand First that—

Hone Harawira: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I simply did not make those statements, at all.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry, but it is a debating point. I would remind the member of what I said on the previous point of order. I would ask the member to be careful on points of order.

RON MARK: Thank you, Madam Chairperson—

Hone Harawira: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. At what juncture do I raise an issue when I think that somebody here has quoted something that they have said I have said when, in fact, I have not said it? Is it a point of misrepresentation, perhaps, Madam Chairperson?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The point is that most of these are debating points. The member will have a chance to speak, and he can speak to those points in his subsequent speech.

RON MARK: New Zealand First is one party that has seriously stood for freedom of speech and has tried its best to uphold those principles of civil liberty that this House and all parties, I am convinced, are committed to. Therefore, it takes seriously its role in deciding whether it will support this legislation. We have decided to support this legislation because we are absolutely convinced of the seriousness of the threat that pervades us.

I will finish by saying this. Possibly the greatest threat to civil liberties, to civilisation, and to the democratic societies that we know is the absolute, blind belief that there is no threat. We have witnessed in earlier times people like Mr Chamberlain, a certain Prime Minister of Great Britain, talking about “peace in our time”, and within months he was locked in one of the bloodiest wars the world had ever known and the tyrant Adolf Hitler was able to rampage across the globe, across the planet, inflicting casualties upon all humanity. Those casualties have never since been repeated, because there exist in our civil communities, within free, democratic countries, those people who are brave enough to stand up and put stakes in the sand when they believe that such actions are absolutely necessary.

I would also note how ironic it is that the party in this House that purports to represent all of Māori—which it does not; it represents a certain clique of Māoridom—should choose to denigrate and overlook the massive sacrifice made by Māori men and women in the First World War, in the Second World War, in Malaya, in Viet Nam, in Indonesia, in the second Malaya war, and to this day around the world in peacekeeping operations. Why do Māori men and women do that? They do that because they want to be assured that their grandchildren, their mokopuna, will grow up in a free country, in a democratic country, where people have the liberty to stand up and say whatever they want to say, no matter how stupid it may be, without advocating violence and without supporting terrorism.

It has also become a hallmark of the House that those politicians who typically stand and so much espouse freedom fighters are the last to step forward to fight for freedom. They are the last to do that, but they act big and great when talking into a megaphone or microphone, or taking advantage of the 10-second or 20-second sound bites on the hustings, when championing their political cause. Maybe those people should stand up in the Chamber and explain what they mean by “sovereignty”, “independence”, or “tino rangatiratanga”, and explain how much liberty and freedom other New Zealanders will have to give up so that others can exercise the political power they seek for their own personal gain.

Terrorism knows no bounds. Terrorism is a threat to everybody’s safety—to all communities. It is a threat to the foundation of democracy, which we live by and which we have the joy and pleasure of being able to experience and exercise. Sometimes that calls for legislation that might be described as Draconian, but everybody has a right to criticise, critique, and seek to amend it. Sometimes it calls for legislation that might be seen to be authoritarian. But the wonderful thing about this country of ours is that we are a free nation, we are a democratic nation, and we give freedom of speech to people who do not agree with us. Right now, they are in a minority, and thank God for that.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : I just want to clarify something that was raised by the previous speaker, Ron Mark. The Māori Party has never ever said that it represents all Māori. In fact, we represent only intelligent Māori. That is the first thing I want to clear up, and that is not a matter of debate.

At another level, when people start talking about the historical nature of terrorism and ask whether the Māori Party actually understands the historical nature of terrorism, I say that absolutely we do. John Hayes talked about introduced diseases. I think of influenza, which was introduced by the whalers and sailors, the wheelers and dealers, and the thieves—who came from England. That disease wiped out thousands of Māori people. When I hear members talk about the murder of innocent citizens, I think of the so-called New Zealand colonial forces who murdered thousands of innocent Māori. When I think of the terror of the overtaking of a people’s land, I think of the land theft that has gone on since the time the New Zealand Government was first established in this country, and that continues to this very day. Do I understand the historical nature of terrorism? Absolutely, I do. I understand it more so than, I assume, many other members of the House.

But do I understand terrorism in the way that other members have expressed it, in terms of this bill? The answer is no. I do not mind saying that I do not understand terrorism as it is understood by those fuelled by the jingoistic, acid-drenched, hate-filled, anti-Islamic, “death to anyone from the Middle East”, vitriolic, poisonous claptrap that the United States is trying to foist upon the rest of the world.

Dr Wayne Mapp: al-Qaeda.

HONE HARAWIRA: The member says “al-Qaeda”. I have heard the mention of al-Qaeda in this discussion on terrorism. Is that the same al-Qaeda, and Taliban, that were funded by the United States to get the Russians out of Afghanistan?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member needs to come back to the bill.

HONE HARAWIRA: I am speaking to the bill in terms of organisations that are listed as terrorist organisations. One of them is al-Qaeda and another is the Taliban. I ask the question of those who would sanction that practice, and would challenge me on it, whether we are talking about the same Taliban that was funded by the United States to throw the Russians out of Afghanistan. When they are talking about al-Qaeda, and the forces in Iraq that are currently opposing the Americans—Saddam Hussein’s people—are they the same forces that the Americans funded to fight against the Ayatollah Khomeini and Iran back in those days? Exactly where does this terrorism come from? It seems to me that terrorism, in terms of this bill, is terrorism as it applies to the American definition, not as it applies to the terrorism that is being meted out against people who oppose that kind of American imperialism.

I come back to the meaning of terrorism in this country. My understanding of terrorism comes from a source that is far different from the American expression of “terrorism”. My source relies on historical fact, rather than hysterical drama, for its position. My source connects me to my indigenous brothers and sisters all over the world. When I think about terrorism in this country, I again think about the terror of the State. What about the terror imposed on those communities in my whanaunga’s electorate? What about the terror imposed on those communities throughout Rūātoki? What about the terror imposed on activists right throughout the country—Pākehā, Māori, and all sorts of people, like Jimmy O’Dea, a 72-year-old staunch activist? His house was broken into by these—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will come back to the bill, thank you.

HONE HARAWIRA: Madam Chairperson, that is not—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member must not refer to specific cases.

HONE HARAWIRA: That case is not before the court.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): All right, thank you. The member assures me it is not.

HONE HARAWIRA: I think about terrorism in this country and whether I will sit quietly by, as suggested by Wayne Mapp, Mr John Hayes, and others, and wait for the police to come up with a decision. No, I will not sit quietly by while State forces terrorise my people. If this requires of me that I speak out against the rule of law that would impose terror on Māori communities in this country, then I will speak out. I will speak out against it in this Chamber, on television, in newspapers, and anywhere else I possibly can. I will challenge the rule of law and I will oppose the rule of law, if terrorism is a vehicle being used by the State forces of this country to terrorise Māori communities. I will support those whānau, hapū, iwi, and individuals—Pākehā, Māori, it does not matter—who have been threatened—

John Hayes: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This matter has absolutely no bearing on the bill under discussion. If there are concerns about the matter, then process should be followed, which takes place outside this Chamber.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is right to a certain extent, and I am trying to keep members to speaking to the bill. However, there has been a lot of discussion about the concepts in the bill, and that discussion includes probably every speaker so far. I ask the member to come back to Part 1 and relate his comments to that part. Again, I remind all members that the Committee stage is really about the nuts and bolts of the bill. That is why we are back on Part 1.

HONE HARAWIRA: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to point out, following on from speakers who have spoken about the calicivirus and Adolf Hitler, that what I have said about terrorism in this country was probably a lot closer to this bill than what other speakers have said.

My support for whānau, hapū, iwi, and individuals—be they Māori, Pākehā, or whatever—who are threatened by the imposition of terror by State forces is absolute. I will not stand by quietly and wait for the New Zealand Police to come up with its idea about what is right and what is wrong. I note that American experts on terror, who have been flown over to this country to give their view, say that our police are probably breaking the law if they hold people without bail. I am not speaking on any particular case here; it is a generic expression in respect of a range of charges rather than any one in particular. If that is the measure of our sitting quietly and accepting the rule of law, then we should not—as a society, as a Committee, and as any party in this Chamber—sit quietly by.

When I hear speakers in this Chamber in respect of this bill talk about the United Nations and ask how we could possibly not go along with the United Nations, I think to myself: “How could we possibly not go along with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?”.

John Hayes: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The member is confusing the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, which is an advisory body of the Economic and Social Council, with the United Nations Security Council, which is the pre-eminent body of the United Nations.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is clearly a debating point, and the member is debating the bill.

HONE HARAWIRA: Thank you, Madam Chair. If Mr Mapp wants to talk about our honouring the call from the United Nations for this, that, and the other, then I would say to members that we should not be picky about it—let us honour them all. If one of the calls from the United Nations happens to be the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, then let us honour that as well. Let us not say we will honour only certain aspects of it—those which go along with the United States’ version of what terrorism should be. Let us honour all aspects handed down to us by the United Nations, including, for example, the recommendation of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination that the Foreshore and Seabed Act be thrown out because it discriminates against Māori people here in Aotearoa.

Coming back to the name of this bill, in terms of terrorism the Māori Party does support the rule of law. The Māori Party does oppose terrorism. The Māori Party will oppose terrorism in all of its forms, whether it is international terrorism or State terrorism. Madam Chair, thank you very much. I will come back to this later. Kia ora tātou.

RON MARK (NZ First) : Given the controversy before, I seek leave to table a statement from Mr Hone Harawira: “If they tried this up north, we’d be out with guns.”

• Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : It is extraordinary to hear Mr Hone Harawira, is it not? He actually took an oath in this Parliament 2 years ago to uphold the laws of New Zealand. What did he say today? He said that he does not believe in the rule of law. What does he believe in—the rule of anarchy? That is, effectively, what he is justifying today. Surely one of the fundamental duties of a member of Parliament is to uphold the rule of law, because the alternative does not bear thinking about.

I want to turn directly to the provisions of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill that relate to committing a terrorist act. The Law Society, for instance, said that that should not be in the legislation. It said that all these events are ordinary crimes, and of course that is right. They are crimes. But what makes an ordinary crime a terrorist act? It is defined in the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002—as my colleague John Hayes referred to—by a threefold test. It is a high test; each one of the tests must be satisfied. There must be an ideological motivation, a religious motivation, or a political motivation. There must be the intention to cause death, injury, or serious risk to the health and safety of the population. Those must be the intentions, and that is stated in the 2002 legislation.The purpose must be to induce terror or unduly compel or force a Government to do or abstain from doing something. Those are high tests, and I acknowledge that. There must be a specific intention—

Keith Locke: There’s no need—

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Read the Act, Mr Locke.

Keith Locke: The Act doesn’t require the actual intention to cause harm—

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Yes, it does. It actually says that in the Act. Those are high tests.

I want to draw attention to something else, because a lot of ignorance has been shown by Mr Locke. To avoid doubt, I say any person who is engaged in protest, advocacy, strikes, lockouts, etc. does not commit one of those acts. Exercising the right of protest—and I do appreciate that some protests involve breaches of the law, minor crimes, and so forth—does not constitute a terrorist act, because the threshold is so high. Terrorism is a grave matter, and the legislation makes that plain and transparent on the face of it. That is why it is actually right for this Parliament to legislate a special sanction for committing an act of terrorism—a sentence of up to life imprisonment—because it is different from an ordinary crime.

Because committing a terrorist act is different from committing an ordinary crime, of course it is right that Government agencies have very high duties when invoking this legislation. I understand that that is the case, and I guess that is the source of the discussions to date by the Māori Party and others on this point. I can understand why many of the public will ask questions about why the authorities are using this legislation. That, of course, is to be expected, because there is such a high threshold. I would also have to say that the public has a right to know the answers within 2 years. We cannot have such a serious issue being raised and then have to wait for 2 years for the actual trial itself.

I want to bring this point to the Māori Party: the Solicitor-General is dealing with those issues right now. That check was put in place under the Terrorism Suppression Act, and it was put in very deliberately in order to ensure that the threshold is deliberately high. That Act cannot be used politically or by the police on their own initiative. The police know they have to bring these things to the Solicitor-General and that judgement will be made on them soon. Because it is going to be made soon, I do ask the Māori Party to actually have a bit of patience on this matter. We will know the answers pretty soon.

I would like to say that on an issue of this nature, I personally think it is very important that justice will need to be open. I have expressed my concerns on a number of occasions about the way the courts operate in this area. I do think we need to be very, very careful on an issue of this nature that justice is open, because that gives confidence to the public that the issues are material and that they do not have to wait for 2 years. I would like to see the issue dealt with pretty soon, and because it is in the hands of the Solicitor-General and will be dealt with very soon I do ask parties like the Māori Party, and perhaps particularly its more inflammatory member Mr Hone Harawira, who apparently does not understand his obligation to uphold the rule of law, a fundamental duty of any member of Parliament, surely more than that of anyone else in the country—

Dr Pita Sharples: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Te Ururoa Flavell explained right at the beginning that the Māori Party stands by the rule of law and is opposed to terrorism. That member should stop talking rubbish.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I remind members that there is to be silence when I am ruling on points of order. I say to the member that this is a Committee debate, and certainly those two points have been raised. But the member is not restricted in the same way that he would be in the readings of a bill. There is time and the opportunity to answer things that are said in Committee.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: It was noteworthy, was it not, that Dr Pita Sharples referred to Te Ururoa Flavell. I, of course, was not referring to him; I was referring to his colleague Hone Harawira. I only assume that he did not hear Mr Harawira’s speech, because that is precisely what he said.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member asked for a second call, so I ask him to please come back to the point.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I was just answering the member’s point.

I want to conclude on this point, because I said I would finish briefly. It is right that we have a specific crime relating to committing a terrorist act. The reason it is right is that terrorism affects fundamentally the stability of society. It is also right that the threshold for defining such a crime is very high. This Parliament, in 2002, went to a great deal of trouble to ensure there was a high threshold. I would like some of the parties to acknowledge that reality. Clearly, when Government authorities use the powers given by the legislation, they ultimately do have to account for using them. I want to conclude by saying to the Māori Party that its members will know the answers pretty soon, because the Solicitor-General is dealing with the issue right now. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) : I move, That the question be now put.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I think it would be wrong to end this debate now. As you said when points of order were raised previously, people like myself would have the right to reply; I also have not fully had time to motivate my Supplementary Order Paper; and also, the Māori Party has had two speakers.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member has called a point of order. It is the Chair’s decision. Is the member calling?

KEITH LOCKE: Yes, Madam Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): OK, Keith Locke.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The final point on my Supplementary Order Paper is that I support, by an amendment, a thorough review of the original Act by the Human Rights Commission, to be completed, according to my Supplementary Order Paper, by 1 December 2009. Wayne Mapp talked about whether there is a difference between criminal offences and terrorism offences when they involve exactly the same activity of a criminal nature. The only real difference between them, if the crime is exactly the same, is that one—the terrorism offence—has a higher penalty, and the only reason for that is the political, religious, or ideological motivation. People are not being punished additionally because of something they have done that is worse; they are being punished additionally because their motivation is political, religious, or ideological.

There are two parallel offences in the Crimes Act and the Terrorism Suppression Act: participation in a criminal organisation is in the Crimes Act, with a penalty of 3 years; participation in a terrorist group is in the Terrorism Suppression Act, with a penalty of 14 years. There is no difference in reality between those two offences apart from the penalty.

I think it is important to see that there are different forms of terrorism. The examples used by Ron Mark, Hone Harawira, etc. were effectively forms of State terrorism: the Rainbow Warrior bombing and the historical State terrorism against Māori earlier in New Zealand history, as has been described. Even over the last 2 weeks other examples have been coming to light, such as a determination that the British State murdered the Brazilian de Menezes, although no one is going to be punished for that, apparently.

Dianne Yates made the point that if people send money overseas to a nationalist organisation like the African National Congress, as has been done in the past, they should not worry—that will not be caught under this terrorist legislation. I think there are two practical problems with that. We are not talking about a Government like the one we have in New Zealand today, which is quite a liberal Government in many respects. We are talking about a Muldoon-type Government or an even worse type of Government that could apply this legislation using the executive power that is being increased in this amendment bill. That is a problem.

Secondly, there is the reality of situations such as someone in the Sri Lankan Tamil communities, for example, giving money to some reconstruction work in the Tamil Tiger areas of Sri Lanka. The Tamil Tigers have, in the past, done some terrorist activity. The reality is that with the conflict in Sri Lanka today, and the blockade put around the Tamil Tiger area, the money might go in through some covert channel to get through to do this reconstruction. That would be the same case as with the African National Congress in the past—the person sending the money cannot be absolutely sure where it will end up. There are no absolute guarantees in this process, but people are acting with goodwill. The clause that previously existed in the Act, which is being chopped out, is about people trying to give money to protect human rights or advocating democratic government. This legislation makes it just that bit more difficult for them and makes it more likely that a Muldoon-type Government with a Muldoon-type Attorney-General—and it is the Attorney-General and not the Solicitor-General who decides whether the charges go forward—could be prejudiced against us.

I talk about Sri Lanka because I have been very aware of a very sad case of State terrorism just these last few days. When I visited Sri Lanka in 2003 to look at the peace negotiations I talked to negotiators on both sides of that conflict. The main person I talked to in the Tamil Tiger area was a chap called Mr S P Thamilselvan, who was assassinated in a Sri Lankan Government air raid last Friday. He was the peace negotiator and he was assassinated, and that was very sad to me. When we talk about terrorism it is not just non-State, small-group terrorism that we are talking about, it is also State terrorism.

Let us get back to the definition of a terrorist act. I do not think Wayne Mapp has presented that properly. A person has to do an act with an ideological, political, or religious cause, and then there are two options. There is an “either/or” option. The first one is “to induce terror in a civilian population”—that is an “either/or” option. A person does not need to fall under that at all if section 5(2)(b) applies—“to unduly compel or force a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act.” That is what many protest groups around this country and around the world do. They are often deemed by the Government of the day to be unduly compelling the Government to do something, so that in itself is not bad.

Then the legislation defines outcomes, and these outcomes are also “either/or”. One of these is serious interference with, or serious disruption to, an infrastructure facility if likely to endanger human life. There is no need whatsoever to have any intention to harm anyone, or to endanger anyone’s life—it just needs the ancillary result of the action to endanger human life, even if there was no intention of doing so.

That is where the legislation creates such a problem for non-violent protest groups who may intentionally or unintentionally disrupt an infrastructure facility. There is nothing to state that one has to have any nefarious intent towards human life or health. I think it is important to get that, because that is what is so problematic.

There was talk earlier in the debate about the balance of the rights of individuals and the rights of communities. This bill is moving more and more away from individual rights, and away from the right to due process. It is cutting the High Court out of the renewal of the terrorist designations, giving the Prime Minister the right to do that, and continuing the problem in the bill of the State determining what happens, rather than the judiciary. The Green Party sees this as a problem as we put it against the background of current events, without referring to any particular legal proceeding.

There is a huge amount of concern in the community, and I think that has to be addressed. We need only go back and read the debates on the original legislation to see that people tended to pooh-pooh the idea that domestic protestors of various types would ever be caught up in this legislation—that their homes would be raided, or whatever. What is causing concern in the community today is that it seems that the principal Act, which imposes 14-year sentences on people for recruiting for, financing, or participating in a terrorist group, is being amended by this bill to add a life sentence for a terrorist act, when a terrorist act, as I have explained, can cover people who do not even intend to do any harm to other individuals. Thank you.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) :Tēnā koe. Tēnātātou katoa. In speaking to Part 1 of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, I have worries that as we pass into law pieces of legislation that have a particular requirement and cover a particular area, we do so without looking at the large-scale implications of them on our country as a whole. Although Te Ururoa Flavell quite correctly characterised the MāoriParty’s stand, which is that we are totally against terrorism and that we accept the rule of law as paramount, nevertheless at the end of the day we are here building a society in Aotearoa. Although we have a whole lot of history behind us, a lot more is still to come, and, unless we build quality race relations as we pass these laws, then I believe we are heading in the wrong direction. I say this because there has been quite inflammatory kōrero—talk—in this Chamber about this bill and about other pieces of legislation, relating to race relations and to actual people in the Chamber.

To me, we have to look at where the Māori people are at this time to understand why there have been widespread repercussions in respect of recent events that have happened under this particular law. I think it is terribly dangerous for us to look at terrorism suppression without us clearly defining the role and, if you like, the limitations of the behaviour of those who have to execute the Act so that we do not get stuff happening that is quite beyond the cause, such as women’s panties being taken out of households in front of the women themselves, as though they were pieces of evidence of terrorism. To me, we have to take it in terms of where we are going in the future. As a country I think we have underestimated the effects of what has happened over recent weeks. I believe there was even a remit at the Labour Party’s own conference from Māori suggesting a reconsideration of this legislation because of its repercussions on Māori themselves, put forward by the Māori council of the Labour Government.

I went to talk, as I do from time to time, to the participants of the Police College refresher courses. In this case there were 25 kaitakawaenga. These are specially trained senior Māori policemen who have a role in iwi liaison.

Ron Mark: They weren’t happy with you, were they?

Dr PITA SHARPLES: They were not happy with you, Ron. Let us be straight up. They asked me what they could do, because they are so hurt from the actions that have taken place. First, they have empathy and sympathy for their Māori people, particularly the Tūhoe people, and, secondly, they uphold the rule of law and are proud to be policemen. They felt caught in the middle. I made some suggestions to them and followed these up with a note to the Commissioner of Police. I hope it reaps benefits for them. My reason for mentioning that is to show members how widespread the hurt is. And I say to Ron that he is quite wrong. They hongi-ed me and praised—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member must refer to members’ full names. Under Speakers’ rulings 26/6 and 26/7 members must use another member’s full name or title.

Dr PITA SHARPLES: Ron Mark is quite wrong, because the whole purpose of my going to the course was to address the question of how the participants could get back their mauri—their life force, as they described it. They were feeling depressed and did not know what to do. I was able to be part of a discussion that would perhaps lead them along a path of restoring their mauri. I just mention that, although it is not to be discussed here.

The matter has gone now to the Solicitor-General, but, at the end of the day, I believe it is the Attorney-General who actually lays the charges. The point is that the damage has been done. So what happens if it turns out that a couple of idiots have been playing up and that the training camp and the use of weapons without permits was for something else but was not actually terrorism? What happens then? Already in Bangkok it is being reported that Māori want to assassinate the Prime Minister. Already the papers in Turkey and in many other countries are saying that Māori are uprising. Those are the reports that have gone out. The damage is done, and once again Māori are being painted as the bad guys—all Māori, not just the two or three who have been arrested. That is how the story has gone out, and that is the picture that many different countries have in relation to what has happened. But for Māori themselves, it is like “Oh, my gosh, here we go again!” You see, we are one of the few races or ethnic groups in the world that still retains its whakapapa and use it in its daily culture—for instance, when we go to funerals, when we meet on the marae and greet each other, and when we talk about land, inheritance, and things like that. It is given verbally. But when we have a people who still have their oral culture and whakapapa in place, then their history is as fresh as if it had happened just the other day.

I will just finish this point: if we implement the provisions of Part 1 and at the end of the day we do not come up with the goodies, then the whole country loses. More important to me is that race relations loses. As someone who has spent 8 years in the area of race relations, 8 years as chairman of the third-largest tribe in New Zealand, and 34 years as the chairman of an urban Māori group, I have a feeling about how Māori feel. I can tell members now—and this is from Pākehā sources, too—that we are worried about what implications this legislation will have on race relations in this country, for us all. That is really what we are on about in life—building our nationhood together. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) : I take the opportunity in the Committee at this stage to put on record my support for Part 1 of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. I was a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee when it gave consideration to this particular measure, and prior to that I was a member of the select committee when it concluded the review of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002—in particular, the sections that are being amended by Part 1 of this bill. As a result of that initial select committee process, I became concerned about the workability of the arrangements in the original bill, and the amendments contained in Part 1 of this measure will give effect to some important changes that I will touch on briefly.

At the heart of this measure, at the heart of this part, in fact, is a difference of view—and I acknowledge that it is a genuine difference of view—about how we deal with the threat of terrorism. Some, like myself and, I am pleased to say, some like members of the Government, see the threat of terrorism as something that is sufficiently serious, and sufficiently difficult and complex to deal with, that it cannot be dealt with by way of the normal processes of the court or by having the standard of proof required before any action can be taken by the agencies of State. It is my view that terrorism in its various guises can be dealt with only by vesting in some authority the ability to arrive subjectively at judgments based on material placed before that authority—material that is of itself unlikely to be admissible in court because of the consequences for intelligence agencies both here and abroad.

I take the view that we have to trust some designated officer—and in this case we are talking about the Prime Minister of the country, who is the most senior elected official in the land—who will have to make that subjective judgment as to whether a particular group, on the basis of the material before him or her, should have certain sanctions taken against it. Those sanctions will obviously have the impact of intruding upon the group’s civil liberties. That is not a step that any Parliament should take lightly, but I do not think that I need to offer too many pieces of evidence for members to be convinced that there is a genuine threat of terrorism around the world, and that every country in its own way has to do something to combat that threat. So I think that what is done in Part 1 of this measure—which effectively is to take away from the courts a role in proceedings that were never going to be suitable for our judicial situation and to place that decision-making capability in the hands of the highest elected official in our country—is the appropriate step for Parliament to take.

I say to Dr Sharples, and to others who have concerns about recent matters, that it is not a power we should vest lightly in any authority, and that where there is any evidence that those powers—indeed, extraordinary powers in this legislation—are misused in any shape or form, this Parliament, and I hope its executive branch, will come down like a tonne of bricks on anyone who steps across the line. As a member of this Parliament, I certainly say to Dr Sharples and others that I presume that the authorities will use these powers wisely in all circumstances, but if there is any evidence to the contrary I will certainly be quick out of the blocks to ensure there is some accountability. I know that other members feel the same.

I support Part 1, vesting as it does considerable authority in the hands of the Prime Minister, who of course is briefed by the Security Intelligence Service on a regular basis, and I urge other members to lend their support to it as well.

• The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 158 in the name of Keith Locke to insert new clause 5A be agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The debate on this part includes schedule 5.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : This is a relatively small part of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, comprising amendments to other Acts. I think it is interesting to discuss this along with schedule 1, because if people read the Green Party’s minority report they will see there is a part of this bill that the Green Party does support, which is the measure that enables us to adhere to two international conventions. Those are the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. I do congratulate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. Dianne Yates spoke earlier, and I was going to congratulate the committee, as part of that discussion, on making sure that our adherence to those conventions did not wrongly penalise people who may be involved in anti-nuclear protests.

As members may know, there have been protests in the past against nuclear waste ships passing through the Tasman, between France and Japan—both ways, I think—and a flotilla of peace boats went out and protested against one of those boats passing through the Pacific. The protesters did not actually stop its passage, but they flew the flag and got a bit of international publicity. They were rightly very concerned about the safety of the nuclear waste materials on those long sea journeys between France and Japan. They were concerned that maybe something would happen to the boat and it would sink into the sea, potentially creating a danger to our fisheries and our environment, not far off the coast of New Zealand. So that was a very good protest. The Government itself was protesting in its own way about that shipment of nuclear materials.

The bill as it was originally conceived had a good motivation: it sought to stop people from interfering with nuclear material in a way that would be harmful to the populace. But the original provision could have been interpreted as meaning that the act of stopping a boat that was passing through the Pacific—stopping the boat by means of a peace flotilla, as people stopped boats in Auckland harbour during the protests against the visits of United States nuclear warships—might be deemed under the wording to be in contravention of this legislation and to carry a very heavy penalty. So the wording was adjusted in the select committee to avoid that possibility, and that is a good thing.

Another amendment was referred to previously, although I do not know whether it was spelt out by anyone. It was a movement in a good direction: to refer any renewal of a terrorist designation—or any terrorist designation, I think—to the Intelligence and Security Committee, which is a statutory committee of this Parliament. It is made up of the Prime Minister, the leader of the National Party, who is called the Leader of the Opposition in the bill, and in the case of the Prime Minister there are two other people, and in the case of the Leader of the Opposition there is one other person. It is not a proper select committee. In an answer to a parliamentary written question, I found that it has met for only 2 hours and 38 minutes in the couple of years since the election, but at least it provides some little check on terrorist designations. There is some accountability, even though I do not think the committee is able technically to cancel the Prime Minister’s designation, but it is a step in the right direction.

I am saying that because the select committee did discuss things and take on board some of the concerns of the many submitters who were against many of the provisions of this bill. I think that as a leading anti-nuclear nation, under schedule 1 and the international convention it refers to we have to be part of the international campaign leading not only to nuclear disarmament but to stopping anyone in non-State organisations using nuclear bombs or using nuclear material in a way that is really disastrous to populations, short or long term. The release of nuclear radiation into certain environments, be they physical or sea environments, can affect many generations of people into the future, and their environments.

In Part 2 there are some useful provisions, at least in terms of schedule 1, although the other amendments in clause 46 to the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Act 2005 do continue some of the problems that exist in Part 1. The Greens will not be voting for Part 2, because of that problem. But we do want to endorse that part of Part 2 and the schedules, namely schedule 1, that adhere us to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. Thank you.

DIANNE YATES (Labour) : I just point out that Part 2, with the schedules attached, is a very technical part of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill—it is just a very small part of it. The changes that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee made were to clause 13 and clause 5 in Part 1, where we made changes relating to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. The actual changes to the wording of the bill were made in Part 1, which we have already discussed. I thank the select committee members and those who made submissions on this matter. We have cleared up very clearly that the legislation would not affect protest against ships that are transporting nuclear waste through the Tasman Sea, and so on. That matter has been clarified, as has the definition of a nuclear facility. Those definitions are actually in Part 1.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) :Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Tēnātātou katoa. I just want to take a brief call, acknowledging that Part 2 is a small part at the end of the bill. Unfortunately I have been tied up in other places, but I want to make a couple of points, in particular around the amendment to other Acts and, of course, the consequences in terms of the principal Act.

I ask members to track this scenario through with me. Let us say, for example, the nation was to be woken up to the notion that terrorism was in Aotearoa, and that in order to deal with it the forces of the State were to move to particular areas throughout the country. Along with that scenario, let us say that a force of 50 or 60 police or other personnel were to move in on a community where they suspected that terrorism was possibly there, and that along that line the possibility of charges under this legislation might be put in front of those people. Let us suppose that in going about that action, as one would expect in terms of dealing with terrorism, the forces of the State were to block off particular communities, maybe. After all that action of, firstly, Aotearoa being woken to the notion of terrorism, secondly, the State using its forces to deal with that, quite rightly so, and thirdly, under the banner of terrorism that community maybe being marked as a community of terrorists, let us say that 50 to 70 police were to go about their work in order to subdue the notion of terrorism within that community.

Let us suppose that at the end of the scenario one person was to be taken out of that community after that whole action —and I ask members to please follow me now—and that that one person, after all that activity and the label of “terrorism” having been put on that person as well as the community, was to be charged with another offence, let us say, just for example, under the firearms legislation, then we, as the Māori Party ask this: what happens if we have not necessarily addressed the issue at heart—namely, terrorism? What happens if we have not quite nailed it down? That is the concern in terms of this particular debate. I have already declared from the start—and my colleagues have also declared—that the Māori Party is clear about the notion of dealing with terrorism. If people are caught for a crime, they need to be processed through the right channels of the law. But what happens if one gets it wrong? What happens if one uses a label such as “terrorism” and one gets it wrong because one has changed direction? What happens to the people who may have been affected by that action?

Let us say, for example—as I stressed during question time in this House today—as a possible scenario one goes into a small community, let us say Remuera, does the same thing and maybe, as part of an action to suppress the notion of terrorism, tells people to get out of their cars and have their photos taken. If every person who went left or right, north or south, was instructed to get out of the car to have his or her photo taken, what would New Zealand society think about that? Would our society think that was about addressing the notion of terrorism? In fact, I suppose one would think that if one was going to deal with terrorism, one would go to the source. One would know where it was, and one would go directly to the source. Yet in a possible scenario like this, other people are affected.

Sure, what we are talking about here is an amendment to the principal Act. But the Māori Party is alerting the Committee to the fact that yes, other Acts are part of this scenario, yet this amendment has come out of the primary Act that addresses terrorism. That is why I am trying to draw the whole thing together. We need to be careful in case, in fact, we do not actually nail the source of terrorism. All of us are concerned about nailing the source absolutely. We have to go there. We have to weed those people out, should there be a case. I would have thought that our intelligence would tell us exactly where to go.

But the downside of that is, what flows out of that? For example, in the community I talked about earlier, what would happen if there had already been a historical experience of the State moving in on that community? What would happen if that community had already had an experience, which had been talked about in history, whakapapa, waiata, and kōrero on marae, of the arrival of the State in that community? What would happen is that basically the development of terrorism would move on from one generation to the next. So what we would do, in fact, is to fill people with anger, frustration, and sadness in having to deal with the consequences of this sort of legislation. As I say, I want to make that really clear, because we can almost get into a them-and-us scenario, which was played out in the House today.

But we take these issues really seriously. Why? Because, in a sense, this particular bill and the amendments that are in it have arrived at Aotearoa. We know that because of the current actions—not that we need to talk about them too much, because it has been plastered over all the media that terrorism is in Aotearoa. So the Māori Party tells the Committee to think about those things. After a short space in time we will end this debate and it may all be forgotten. But in a sense, while we talk about terrorism, let us not forget the consequences if we do not quite get it right. Kia ora tātou.

DIANNE YATES (Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : I want to reflect on the history of this legislation, because I think it is relevant when we consider the tone and tenor of the debate today. Of course, this legislation has its origins in September 11. That is why the Terrorism Suppression Act came into being. I note that one particular party in this Parliament—a party that does not exist any more, the Alliance—broke apart on that legislation. I guess that the remnants, the wreckage, of that party are still here. I was listening to the radio this morning, as I do from time to time, and I heard that there are trade unions that are proud that they are staunch against the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002. They claimed that the Law Society was against it in 2002, which is not actually true, in fact. Hearing that reminded me of the irredentist left, who see this as a reflexive approach. With things as drastic as September 11, when thousands and thousands of people were killed, even then, the irredentist left could not bring itself to act internationally to deal with it. One particular political party fell apart on that very issue.

The Green Party, I guess we would have to say, has been consistent. Right from the get-go it has opposed any and every legal measure to deal with terrorism that arose out of September 11 and al-Qaeda. Those on the left have all sorts of pettifogging legal justifications for that. But we have to look more deeply, do we not, and we have to ask ourselves why they would always oppose anything to do with dealing with terrorism and September 11. Ironically, today is the very first time that I have not heard the Green Party vote against something around this legislation, and that was the schedules. Does that mean that the Green members, for a change, support the schedules? Realistically, probably not, because their pattern is against this. So we have in this Parliament two parties, one of which—the Green Party—is always opposed, no matter what, because that is basic to its anti-Americanism. Let us be honest about this. The Greens are fundamentally opposed to the United States, and whenever they get the opportunity, they vote against anything that has anything at all to do with the United States, even though thousands and thousands of innocent people were killed in September 11.

We have to give Jim Anderton some credit on this—actually, a good deal of credit. He knew on that day what he had to do. He was prepared to take the risk in the full knowledge that the irredentist left of his party would depart—and it did—and he remained strong, right through that process. The Green Party, interestingly, has taken completely the opposite view. Today we see the Māori Party members—for somewhat different reasons, I admit—also opposing the legislation. I wonder whether Mr Hone Harawira’s colleagues would take quite the same view had the events of the last few weeks not happened—Mr Hone Harawira would, I guess, but I wonder about his colleagues.

I mention that history because it is actually why this bill is here today. That is why we are debating this bill today. It is not about events that have occurred in the last 3 weeks. It is about New Zealand’s international responsibilities in supporting the mandatory parts of the United Nations, and that is an important legal point that I bring to the Committee. Some parts of the United Nations’ activities are essentially discretionary. Other parts are mandatory—the parts that deal with the Security Council. The Security Council has membership from literally across the globe, and we know that the member countries do not always see eye to eye, but on this particular issue—the need to deal with terrorism, particularly by al-Qaeda—there is a unified international viewpoint. That is what we are dealing with today, fundamentally.

National has been totally consistent on this. We take seriously our responsibilities as part of the international community. We know that much of the way to deal with international terrorism is through the proper framework of law and justice. If political parties cannot support those fundamentals, we have to ask ourselves whether they even support the rule of law. I was amazed to hear one particular member today in the House—Mr Hone Harawira—saying he does not support the rule of law. Well, we have to ask ourselves why he is here. Is he not better outside protesting, where he obviously feels somewhat more comfortable? I just make that point. Supporting the rule of law, irrespective—

Hone Harawira: Thousands of your wife’s relations put me here.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: That is true, I would have to concede. I know the origins of the Māori Party, but surely of all parties, because of its belief on the foreshore and seabed, it actually does want the rule of law. That was the motivating event—they saw the Government perhaps not supporting the rule of law. I would have to say that, irrespective of particular views, the rule of law matters, and on this issue, that is what we are actually debating today. Do we support the rule of law or not? I think the answer is pretty clear. National does support the rule of law. We take our responsibilities as international citizens seriously, and that, ultimately, is the only way we are going to deal with the scourge of international terrorism.

DIANNE YATES (Labour) : I thank the member opposite, Wayne Mapp, for his contribution. I point out that we have been discussing respect for the rule of law and members’ commitment to the rule of law, and I do honour what members have said in this debate. The select committee was concerned that we achieve in the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill a balance between protecting New Zealand citizens, protecting the rights of New Zealand citizens, and freedom of speech, freedom of association, and that we have democratic transparency within this bill. The committee did listen to submissions, and very, very seriously took into account what members said and what submitters said.

I am also aware that in this debate members have sometimes oversimplified the arguments, and have made assumptions about other people and other parties that are not always correct. As I have said, we tend to oversimplify. We have mixed up some genuine concerns with a desire to whip up concerns about things that are not in the bill. Things have been said about matters that are not contained within this legislation.

I thank the select committee for the balanced approach that it took, and for the changes that were made to the bill. I am satisfied that the committee members put their best minds to it and did the best job available. Once again I thank the members of the committee.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : It is good that people are talking in this debate about the rule of law, because I think that is at the heart of it. Wayne Mapp also talked about it in a historical perspective, going back to 11 September 2001. The key thing is that most people around the world—90-something percent of the citizens of the world—recognise that an undermining of the rule of law has accompanied George Bush’s so-called war on terror. They see that in Guantánamo Bay, where people are not subject to the rule of law; they are subject to interminable executive detention without any access to judicial process, or with highly flawed access when, in the odd case, it does occur.

We have seen huge injustices being brought in under the auspices of the terrorism laws. We saw that just across the Tasman a few months ago in the Haneef case, whereby an innocent Indian doctor was persecuted by politicians at the highest level, who were determined to get him and cancel his visa and do all kinds of things. Even though it was clear that he was totally innocent, the politicians were determined to make a scapegoat of him. That is the problem. The Haneef case is a good example of why one should not, as has happened since September 11, substitute judicial power for executive power. That is exactly what has happened, and this bill is a part of that—substituting the Prime Minister’s approval for that of the High Court in relation to extending the terrorist designations. The Prime Minister—and we have a pretty good Prime Minister in most respects—can be a little prejudiced, or the system can go a little wrong.

Just to indicate how the executive branch can undermine the rule of law, I say we saw that in the case where Helen Clark was subject to a private briefing on what was happening in the recent alleged terrorism events—and I will not get into the detail of them. We do not know any of the detail of the charges, other than that they are in the general category of arms charges. We do not know any of the evidence. Yet Helen Clark got up and said, on the basis of her private briefing, that those arrested in the terrorism raids had “at the very least … illicitly used firearms, constructed Molotov cocktails and trained themselves in how to use napalm”. That illustrates why it is wrong to give a Prime Minister power in such cases. We saw that across the Tasman, with the Minister of Immigration getting right in there—boots and all—to try to get that chap, Dr Haneef.

The Greens are very much in favour of the rule of law. The submissions both on the original bill and on the amendment bill came from a range of organisations, probably including all the civil liberties organisations in the country, and came from the most highly trained lawyers—the ones most conscious of the rule of law and civil rights issues—and the Human Rights Commission, which wanted a whole review done because it could see that this amendment bill and the original Act breached the rule of law in many respects and made it unfair for our society. The New Zealand Law Society in its submission said we do not need a body of law and something called a terrorist act to override what is already covered. All the crimes are covered in the Crimes Act already—every single last one. Whether they be conspiracy crimes or participation in a criminal group—whatever crimes members care to name—then they are covered. The Law Society said that if there is a little twist and one says the particular crime was committed with the aim of terrorising a population—and that can be a twist, as to whether it involves a criminal gang or a political group—then the judge can take that into account in sentencing. The judge has the power to take into account whether there has been terrorism—be it in a local suburb for some criminal reason, or in a group or community for a political reason. The judge can take that into account in sentencing.

We do not need to have a whole realm of laws on top of the existing law. The Law Society said that would lead to great confusion as to which charge to lay: the terrorism charge or the criminal charge. If we lay both charges, then we will get a plea bargaining system whereby someone will look at it and say that for participation in a criminal group the maximum sentence is 3 years’ imprisonment but that for participation in a terrorist group the maximum is 14 years. Therefore, people may plead guilty to the lower charge even though they are innocent, in order to get off the charge that carries the higher sentence on conviction. That is the problem.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) :Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Speaking on the rule of law, what are we talking about here? This is a country where everyone goes around saying “One law for all.” So what was the story with the foreshore and seabed legislation? Where the hell did that come from? The National Party had a chance to stand up for justice by supporting the Māori Party on the repeal of that legislation. It missed a golden opportunity, because it was frightened of losing its support out there—instead of being true to National’s own conviction, which was to repeal the legislation. But I should get back to the rule of law—good thinking!

I do not see that National supports the rule of law. Let me take the Treaty of Waitangi. When we came into this place we went to a few seminars on what law was and things like that, and on what the constitution was. We were told the bits and pieces that make up New Zealand’s constitution, and one of them is the Treaty. Both the National Party—whose members are now talking over the top of me—and the Labour Government have said that the Treaty of Waitangi is our nation’s foundation document. So why is it not in the rule of law? Why is it not ratified in some form, as the umbrella, if you like—the matua Act or the senior Act—if it is the foundation of our constitution? At the end of the day, that is what we are talking about: our nationhood. If the Treaty is truly the foundation document of our nationhood, why is it not ensconced in place and legislated for as the guardian document, and let everything come out of it? It is so cheap to talk about the rule of law, yet we have all these anomalies. People say they cannot have the Māoris owning the foreshore and seabed, so they will keep it—but they will sell a bit for mining and stuff like that.

Seriously, it is more than just the rule of law; what about exercising the rule of law? I am waiting. People say we should wait and see. I will wait and see whether that policeman who took that woman’s panties out of the drawer in front of her and walked out with them was exercising the rule of law, and whether that was correct procedure. It is one thing to have the rule of law, but the other feature is exercising the rule of law, and having restrictions to stop it from being abused.

To go with the rule of law and exercising it is interpreting it. We have just done away with the fraud squad and we will look at organised crime. If one goes to the New Zealand Police website and looks up organised crime, one sees reference to Māori gangs. They are the most disorganised people I know. They do not even agree amongst themselves. Although most of them are trying to do good now, pockets of them are still offending under the Acts. So how can they be called organised, for a start? And why does organised crime consist of those Māori gangs? I went to a seminar in which Australian and New Zealand police chiefs said that a certain gang—it is not a Māori gang; it is a well-known gang throughout the world—is now the new Mafia. If that gang is the new Mafia, it is organised. If it is organised, why is it not on the police website as organised crime? [Interruption] That is my point. Wayne Mapp said that if the events of the last few weeks had not happened—

Ron Mark: Dr.

Dr PITA SHARPLES: Dr Wayne Mapp.

John Hayes: No, it wasn’t him; it was me.

Dr PITA SHARPLES: It was Dr Mapp too. It was both members—two of them. They wondered whether we would be speaking like this if the events of the last few weeks had not happened. But that is the whole point. The events of the last few weeks highlight the danger of this particular Act: that it can be used, and, at the end of the day, there is a clean-up procedure. A whole lot of stuff out there will not be able to be accounted for, but the damage will have been done because the message has gone out, and so on.

Finally, talking about the rule of law, why are people in this Committee giving so much lip-service to the United Nations when they will not accept the word of the special rapporteur on race relations and they will not ratify the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? Thank you, Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Just before I call the Hon Murray McCully I wish to advise members that a Standing Orders review was done in 2003. A result of the review was that the point was made that when debating the preliminary clauses at the end of considering a bill in Committee, members should have some latitude to summarise and make concluding remarks about the issues they have raised during the Committee’s consideration of the bill. So although it is a wide-ranging debate, it has to be related to the issues that have been raised during the course of the debate in the Committee stage.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) : I will agree with the speakers from the Māori Party and the Green Party on one matter. The Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill that we are debating today will substitute the judgment of the executive branch, and particularly the most senior member of the executive branch, of the Government for the judgment of the judiciary in determining who will have the toolkit of the Terrorism Suppression Act applied to them. I agree with those members that that is essentially what is at issue here. They advance various reasons why they are unhappy about that development taking place. I do not want to say to them that I have no difficulty at all in supporting this bill, for a very simple reason. You see, there are some very, very bad people out there in the world today. Those people will do some very, very bad things to some other people unless the authorities have a toolkit that enables them to deal with those people.

They are people who fly planes into buildings. They are people who put car bombs into cars and drive them into nightclubs. They are people who kill in cold blood. They are people who do not care about the misery they cause or about the harm they do. They do not play by any rulebook. They play by foul means, inevitably, so our authorities must have a toolkit that enables them to deal with a threat that is as serious and as complex as that. That is what the Terrorism Suppression Act was passed to deal with in 2002, and that threat is every bit as serious today, not just in the wider world we live in but also in this country.

I have no problem at all in substituting the judgment of the executive for that of the courts in dealing with this matter, because we have two UN resolutions that this bill gives some force to. First of all, we have UN Resolution 1267, which states that we should pick up the list of terrorist entities the United Nations Security Council designates, and designate those entities in this country. I do not think we should have any difficulty with doing that, and the New Zealand Government has so far followed faithfully its obligations to do that. What this bill will do, as my colleague Dr Mapp pointed out previously, is to ensure that as those designations cease to have effect, we will not have the courts but the Prime Minister decide on the information available to him or her as to whether those designations should be rolled over. I have no difficulty with doing that, because to rely on the courts is to ask the courts to determine matters on which they simply cannot have the information before them to be able to determine them, and I think that this is why we should pass this component of the bill.

But I remind the Committee that we also have UN Resolution 1373, which calls upon Governments to designate other terrorist entities that are a threat in their region. I take this opportunity to again remind the Committee that in that respect the New Zealand Government has been negligent, in my view. Australia has designated under UN Resolution 1373 some 88 organisations that are a threat to the people of Australia, in the view of their Government, and not one—not one—of those entities has been designated in this country under UN Resolution 1373.

Although we might pass this legislation and give this toolkit to the Prime Minister to use, we have no guarantee that the Prime Minister will use it. In Australia organisations like the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, the Basque separatist movement, certain wings of Hezbollah and Hamas, and the Tamil Tigers, are all designated as terrorist entities under Australian legislation, yet in this country we have no such designations for those organisations. We have an open border with Australia and relative freedom of movement, yet we are singing from a completely different song sheet when it comes to the designation of those terrorist entities.

I simply say to the Government and to the Prime Minister that we are happy to pass this amendment to the Act. It makes sense. We are happy for the Prime Minister to have this toolkit to deal with a threat that we on this side of the Chamber regard as serious—very serious indeed. I say to the Prime Minister that if she does not use this toolkit and we do not see New Zealand move on to the same page as Australia with the designation of terrorist entities under UN Resolution 1373, then she and her Government run the risk that they will be found out, and I hope that is not something we see in this country.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : I would just like to respond to some of Murray McCully’s comments. He rightly points out that there is disagreement over whether we should give the Prime Minister extra powers in this respect and he uses a security argument, but I think that argument tends to fall down, because we have seen—particularly over the last few years in the Ahmed Zaoui case—that when we give the executive branch too much power to determine a person’s fate in secret, using so-called classified information that is very broadly defined, the political agendas of the Government of the day tend to predominate and people suffer. This is the case, be it Ahmed Zaoui, be it Dr Haneef in Australia, or be it any of the many examples in Canada and in other Western countries.

Just about every other advanced Western country with a good system of democracy and a good judicial system has suffered through giving to the executive those powers to determine someone’s future through using secret information, and it need not be so. We can defend ourselves by keeping the judicial process as it is and by keeping the situation where a person can be sent down, be imprisoned, only if they know the accusations against them and if they can properly defend themselves. We can see the problem. Murray McCully said that we should have all these other designations, and he ranged across a whole lot of nationalist groups. It is a characteristic of some of those nationalistic groups that at the edges they do engage in terrorist activity, which we all condemn.

There are wild elements, and wrong tracks may be taken that we are all against, as a democratic community. But if we want to get from A to B in order to improve the situation—as we found in the Northern Ireland peace process—we have to engage in those situations with those people who want to move towards a democratic resolution. We have to engage with the Gerry Adamses, to use the example of Northern Ireland. When we go about just designating entities willy-nilly, we cannot do that. The person I referred to before, Mr S P Tamilselvan, who was assassinated last Friday, was a person whom I met and discussed the peace process in Sri Lanka with in 2003. It is very much a fact that the Western countries that designated the Tamil Tigers as a terrorist organisation cut themselves out of the peace process, which was going very well in 2002, 2003, and 2004, and the ceasefire was holding. But because Australia, Britain, America, and later the European Union designated the Tamil Tigers as a terrorist organisation, they cut themselves out of that peace process, and it opened it up to a resumption of the warfare rather than to a peaceful resolution. They left countries like Norway stranded in trying to hold the peace process together.

We must take a different course. It is so damaging to just categorise people as “terrorist”, as was discussed before by speakers from the Māori Party. The image of someone being related to terrorism and being raided over potential terrorism charges and terrorism matters is just so damaging to the proper consideration of the issues involved—the community issues, the political issues—in bringing people together, bringing justice to the situation, trying to get at people’s gripes, and trying to understand why they go off the rails a bit or do things that we all condemn.

We have to get at the basis of it to be able to lead to a resolution. The terrorism suppression legislation, whether it applies to the designation of international organisations—which Murray McCully talked about—or to people in New Zealand, is very dangerous. It is much better to stick to the criminal law, rather than to label people and punish people more just because they have political views and are involved in a political movement.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) :Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson, and thank you for your lead in respect of the direction about the—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

• Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: In reflecting on your comment earlier, Mr Chairperson, about the wrap-up time of the discussion, I want to comment a little bit about Mr Mark’s kōrero in making us aware that maybe we need to consider that issues of terrorism might be just around the corner. He referred to the Rainbow Warrior scenario, and we acknowledge that—it is a fair call. He talked also about what our tūpunaMāori fought for, and possibly implied that they may well be turning in their graves in respect of our stand now against terrorism, or at least the perceived stand by the Māori Party. He talked about the Māori Battalion and those who went overseas. He did not talk about HaaneMānahi and Willy Apiata, but they follow a long line of people who have been committed to this country in trying to create a better nation for us. Always in Māori communities we tend to ask what their sacrifice was for. On Anzac Day our people generally reflect on that discussion—what was the death of so much Māori leadership all about. I think it was about creating a better New Zealand and creating a positive environment for both Māori and Pākehā to come together.

That is all very well, until it comes time to deal with the Māori issue. As Dr Sharples reflected, the notion of one law for all is all very fine and good, until it comes to the crunch when we get to issues like the seabed and foreshore where people have the ability to change laws at the drop of a hat, whereas they may not necessarily support the dreams and aspirations of one of our peoples of this land. Recently in the courts of this land Federation of Māori Authorities has been challenging some of the developments by the Crown, in respect of Crown forest rentals trust lands. The notion about one law for all is all very well and good, but if one has the ability to change those laws to the detriment of another, and without the discussion, then we question that.

At this point in time a number of speakers have talked about the notion of waiting—let us wait and hear, for example, about some of the scenarios that we face as a country right now in terms of particular actions in the Bay of Plenty. Even with this particular bill and the possibility of having to wait on the outcomes of actions taken under any sort of terrorism suppression legislation, one of the questions that is still hanging is “how long?”. How long will people have to wait to receive, to know, and to understand the charges they have to face? Will it be 3 weeks, a month, a year? Is there an end time? Will people, if they come under this legislation tracking through, be incarcerated for up to 2 years, without necessarily knowing the length and breadth of the charges? At the moment, in a scenario that we face as a country, right now a lot of the information under the notion of terrorism suppression is not well known. It is locked down because of the actions of the court.

That is all very well and good, but what about the consequences for those families and children who have to wait for their mothers and fathers? What about the hapū that have to wait for their uncles and aunties, and so on, while somebody makes a determination about whether a charge will be laid under the Terrorism Suppression Act?

In trying to draw some of the discussion together, the Māori Party is concerned that under this legislation New Zealand would automatically adopt the UN list of terrorists and terrorist organisations, in the sense that it is the US that dominates the compilation of these lists. The effect is that New Zealanders working to support, for example, liberation struggles, and democracy, and human rights overseas would now be faced with the prospect of being charged with supporting terrorist organisations. Under the new proposal it would have been illegal to provide support, as Mr Keith Locke talked about, to the African National Congress in the fight against apartheid, or for campaigns to have Nelson Mandela released from jail. The previous legislation allowed support and assistance to organisations, provided it was “for the purposes of advocating democratic Government or the protection of human rights.” This wording is to be removed. New Zealand will give up its right to make its own independent assessments of terrorists and terrorist designations, and without the ability to make our own independent assessments, we will become rather captive to prejudiced, politically motivated overseas assessments such as those that relate to Ahmed Zaoui.

Previously, New Zealand adopted the UN designations, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The Māori Party says that this safeguard would be removed. The process for review of designations would become less independent and more vulnerable to political interference, also allowing greater influence from other nations. The new offence of “terrorist act” could be applied to non-terrorist persons and actions, for example, protests—bringing back the concerns raised over the Terrorism Suppression Bill.

Mr Keith Locke talked about current criminal offences covering all terrorist acts. So the introduction of the new offence of terrorist act seems almost unnecessary. I note that the New Zealand Law Society submission argued that the new crime “engaging in a terrorist act” should not be added to our statute book. As Mr Locke said, such terrorist behaviour is already covered by a range of offences such as murder and kidnapping, each with heavy maximum penalties. We say that the new terrorism offence could cause confusion amongst prosecutors as to which charge to lay—engaging in a terrorist act or the underlying offence—which could result in inconsistent sentencing and the possibility of that notion of double jeopardy. The fact is the terrorist act carries a penalty of life imprisonment, so it is critical that all of the issues are worked through properly, or else we could end up with a situation that possibly every political and environmental protester in the country is locked away for undertaking activities like fund-raising, as clause 7 talks about, or posturing, as clauses 11 and 12 talk about—in other words, recruiting members and participating in terrorist groups. We have a real concern about that.

The courts are removed from considering designations of terrorists or terrorist organisations. At the moment, if the Prime Minister designates a terrorist organisation, then this is reviewable by the High Court after 3 years, as we understand it. Independent scrutiny of cases will no longer be available. The Prime Minister will be the judge and jury. The US wants this—we say that the US has some vested interest in this—and it could be that we are subject to international pressure in respect of who is and who is not a terrorist. At least with the courts there is some semblance of independent scrutiny, although I did hear what Mr McCully talked about earlier.

The assumption of power by politicians over court processes is demonstrated pretty clearly by the US with its treatment of Guantánamo Bay detainees, and the CIA rendition programmes whereby suspected terrorists have been transferred around the world for, possibly, torture. In both cases the court has been sidelined. We say that in terms of New Zealand that would be a disgraceful episode. That is just drawing together some of the comments made in the Chamber a little bit earlier in trying to focus us in on some of the arguments that the Māori Party has attempted to put before the Committee, and also hearing the arguments of the other parties. Kia ora tātou.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : I have an idea that it was Bertrand Russell who said something about people getting pleasure in two ways—either by getting pleasure, or by trying to impose their authority and gain power. I keep thinking, when I look at the way the votes have gone in this Chamber this afternoon—whereby we have 10 votes against the bill and everybody else voting for it—that there is something fundamentally wrong with those who are opposing this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill.

My colleague Wayne Mapp woke up this morning—or yesterday morning, or the morning before—and he was listening to the radio. He heard the representatives of the Council of Trade Unions and all other manner of organisations opposing this bill. As it happened I thought to myself that I could have woken up this morning and felt that the Prime Minister was being a touch “Stalinesque” when she said: “I’m going to ban Guy Fawkes.”, and last night was our Guy Fawkes Night. Whether she does that remains to be seen, but there is a “Stalinesque” quality to that. There is a “Stalinesque” quality to the whole work-for-income scheme, to supported families, and to putting everybody on the State’s payroll. There is a “Stalinesque” element in the Green Party’s argument that we should be opposing this legislation.

I am proud to support this legislation because my concern is for the community and the collective protection of the community. Whether or not we like it, there are people who wish to commit terrorist acts. Despite the comments made by my colleague Keith Locke earlier today, the reality is that there was an incident involving the Rainbow Warrior, when terrorists from another country infiltrated our border and got back through it again without being caught because we did not have the right rules in place to stop them.

Hone Harawira: No; we let them go, mate.

JOHN HAYES: We did not have the right rules to stop them, and I am going to come to the member shortly. We have to balance the rights of the bulk of the community against the rights of the individual. Although in an ideal world I would warmly support this legislation being implemented by our justice system, the fact is—with a background in foreign affairs inevitably one has had some rubbing up against the intelligence infrastructure in this country, and one knows—that the conjecture and the nature of that means that we cannot really expose that information to the court process, because if we did we would end up not getting the information in the first place.

So we have to rely on somebody, and in our country the reality is that in our democracy we rely on the Prime Minister, whoever he or she is, and whichever party he or she comes from. The Prime Minister is ultimately the decider, the arbitrator, of the security apparatus in this country. Therefore, we are comfortable with the fact that the Prime Minister should be adjudicating on these issues.

When we come to the arguments advanced by the Māori Party members, and setting into one parcel the race-based arguments they have advanced in this Chamber today, I would like to talk to them a little bit about the United Nations. Whether or not we like it, we are part of the collective nations of this world. We are a member of the United Nations, along with a lot of other countries. And, as my colleague Wayne Mapp says, we are a member in good standing.

One of the obligations and the benefits of belonging to the United Nations is the one bit of that entity that works: the Security Council. We can forget about most of the rest of the United Nations, but the Security Council actually still works. It is the only part of the United Nations apparatus that still operates effectively, with the possible exception of the World Bank and the World Food Programme. When the United Nations meets in the Security Council, which contains a mix of core members who do not get voted in and out and other countries that do get voted in and out, there is a balance in the process. Countries can talk to Security Council members. It is in that process that the resolutions defining those entities that are considered terrorists are made. When we look at the infrastructure of the United Nations, it is the Security Council that listens to representations from a lot of communities around the world, and the council has decided collectively on the list of people who go on the terrorist list. When that is done, there is an obligation on this country, in the form of a United Nations resolution, that requires us to sign up to that. If we consider the case of South Africa, the only reason we imposed sanctions on South Africa was because of the collective action of the Commonwealth, to which we were similarly obliged to implement such resolutions. We had to do this, as we have to in the case of the United Nations’ resolutions; we have no option but to sign up to this process.

We are not like our colleagues and cousins in Australia—and there are almost a million New Zealanders there—because the Australian Government signed up to this more than 2 years ago. Our Government has been dragging its heels. It was only through our select committee process that we managed to discover this and expose the Government’s fragility for not acting on this issue. Furthermore, the Government of Canada signed up to this some years ago and it has 50 people on its list. There are 88 on the list in Australia. What did we do? We did nothing. We sat on our hands. Is it because we have a small foreign ministry? I doubt it. Is it because money was in short supply? I doubt it. The problem was simply that the political will did not exist on that side of the Chamber to move it. The Labour Government has now moved and we commend it for that. We are absolutely in support of what it has done.

Finally, I would like to address some comments to my colleagues in the Māori Party. I feel deeply upset that they are tying this legislation to the activities that happened in the Tūhoe area. I do not know one way or another what is right and what is wrong, and I venture to suggest that the Māori Party members do not know either. What is important is that every politician in this House, whether from National, Labour, United Future, New Zealand First, Māori Party, or ACT, supports the legal process that applies in this country. It does not matter who we are, or whatever. If there is an issue and one goes before the court and is found guilty, one suffers the penalty. There has been a very good example of that in the Pacific in the last few days when a former Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands found himself behind bars for instituting a terrorist act in the Solomon Islands in the coup that overthrew Ulufa’alu and the events in the wake of that.

It seems to me that all of us need to use a measure of common sense and judgment. I saw things in recent events that I did not particularly like, but it is not for me to comment. My job—and, I venture to suggest, the job of the Māori Party members—is to hang in tough and to support due process in this country, and then, when that process is completed, ride hard on whatever the decision is. If we do not do that, our country has no future. I do not condone a separatist State here and I am disappointed by the separatist arguments, and the race-based arguments, I have heard in this Chamber this afternoon.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson. National is fully supportive of this bill and we look forward to its early passing.

DIANNE YATES (Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : I think that John Hayes and myself have a common agreement on not banning fireworks, which is a step forward. John Hayes talked about “Stalinesque”, and Kafkaesque comes to mind, too. I saw a film, I think it was called The Lives of Others, on Stalinism in East Germany recently and it has similarities with the operation of the rule of law under terrorism laws, in that John Hayes said we must trust the Prime Minister. It is no accident that National and Labour are voting together on this when National is saying “We trust the Prime Minister to do things right.” That is what happened in The Lives of Others in East Germany. I think it was a chap called Honecker. Everyone trusted him to do things right. He had his security service.

That is one of the things worrying people at this present time, if members talk to them—the level of surveillance involved in what has been going on, in texts, in emails; you name it. Somehow people have realised that and said: “Hold on.” One of the provisions in the legislation we passed back in 2001 allows the police to access a person’s computer without that person knowing and changing his or her files in order to hide his or her entry and exit. That was one of the laws that was passed in 2001. Those sorts of laws are now being applied in the context of this terrorism legislation, and people are getting worried.

In The Lives of Others the person affected, the writer, did not quite know who his friends were, who his accusers were, and what was the information against him. That is the Zaoui scenario, the scenario of the people at Guantánamo Bay detention centre. It is that Stalinist type of approach, with a person not knowing what he or she is up against. It is Kafkaesque in that sense. That is where we are headed, unfortunately.

We were talking about one law for all, before. One reason why the law is more prejudiced against certain sections of the community in terrorism cases is the very fact that the thing that distinguishes terrorism laws from criminal law is that terrorist acts are deemed to be political crimes, whether the motivation is political, ideological, or religious. Once laws are defined in that sense, it depends where a person sits in terms of those political motivations as to how the Government treats those people doing the crimes and how heavily it wants them punished. So political prejudices automatically affect how terrorism crimes are dealt with. The application by the police of searches and raids are then also politically coloured by Māori radicals or whoever might be in their minds.

It was not because the police were naturally bad, although I will not give them a clean bill of health at this stage, but the political context in which they were operating and bringing in terrorism warrants, and what not, actually coloured how they saw the situation. It meant that they could do things in Tūhoe country, like stopping and photographing people, which they would never apply where I come from in Auckland—in Mount Eden or Remuera Road. [Interruption] Yes, if they had tried it in Remuera Road, how long would it have lasted? I ask members to ask themselves that question.

There is the whole serious political accusation stuff—these are bad people; they have bad political motives. It was mentioned before that the proceedings can then tend to drag out longer. At Guantánamo Bay they last for years and years and years. It is the same in other cases. Sometimes at the end of it, as in Ahmed Zaoui’s case, it was almost 5 years before it was found there was nothing really against him and he wasted those years of his life without his family. That is how it goes.

Because the Green Party does not support this legislation, of course we do not support any Attorney-General applying the legislation in whatever situation. I will not comment on the particular cases that we are not supposed to comment on, but in any cases we would not support the Attorney-General proceeding with terrorism charges because we see them as politically discriminatory and everything can be covered under the criminal law anyhow.

Reference was made to the Rainbow Warrior and that is the point that the Greens and the Māori Party have been making all through this debate, not only under this legislation but under other legislation, that with State terrorism, the State becomes more of the problem in many situations. The Rainbow Warrior is a case in point—the French State, for its own political interest, bombed the Rainbow Warrior. The rendition programmes of the Bush administration are a form of terrorism by the State, in terms of its application to some of those involved without any trials. In terms of the different prejudices of the New Zealand State in relation to different forms of terrorism—State and non-State—there was the case of an admitted war criminal Moshe Ya’alon who visited New Zealand in January. The District Court ordered him to be arrested, and was he treated the way the Tūhoe people were treated? The police—and this needs to be remembered and dealt with at some point—refused to obey the judge. They refused to obey the arrest order. That they did that was, to me, a State crime. What the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General did was equally bad. A huge box of papers arrived from the plaintiff in Auckland.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

KEITH LOCKE: I am talking about the issue of State and non-State terrorism, and how State terrorism is caught in practice by such legislation, including this bill. The papers arrived at 5 past 1 on the Tuesday afternoon at the Solicitor-General’s office. By 5 o’clock he had processed this huge thing, done all the legal determination of it, and sent the papers over to the Attorney-General who had signed them off by 5 o’clock. That was a gross miscarriage of justice and it was part of that inherent bias on terrorism issues. A self-confessed State terrorist who had killed 15 people in Gaza with a bombing a year or two back, was ordered to be arrested by a judge, and the case was disposed of because essentially the Government did not want to politically embarrass Israel, because it was closer to Israel in that political context.

So that is the problem we get into once we start dealing with terrorism laws, State terrorism, and non-State terrorism—the political content of terrorism. State priorities and State prejudices come into play. That is why the Greens are so opposed to this amendment bill. Thank you.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) :Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. Tēnātātou katoa e te Whare. When I was listening to Dr Mapp talk about being in bed and listening to the radio, it reminded me of a book that I was reading when I was doing bed and breakfast at 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 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 Chamber knows the saying “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.”—such were the sentiments of the United States just a couple of hundred years ago. So when I think about this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, that too is where my understanding of terrorism comes from. I reckon we could 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 the weapons of mass destruction that were never found and the link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein that was never proved. And yes, I call it a crusade, because it was a venture of Christian paranoia against Islam—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 has finally charged some poor dumb Aussie, David Hicks, as its first Guantánamo “war on terror” detainee. An Australian, for heaven’s sake! Six years after 9/11, is this the result of billions of dollars of US intelligence spent on securing a conviction to justify its war in Afghanistan? An Australian? Heaven forbid that we 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 that it could come up with was the so-called confession from an Australian charged with providing material support. Seriously, hands up all those in this Chamber who believe that that confession was entered into freely and willingly. So when I think of this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, that too is where my understanding of terrorism comes from.

And I recall too a very personal connection to South Africa. One brother member of the African National Congress, Andrew Moletsane, who fled the terror in his own homeland, came to our home in Ōtara in South Auckland to give testimony about the terror being imposed by the apartheid regime of South Africa. A few years later he was hunted down and murdered in Botswana by one of Botha’s goon squads. So when I think of this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, that too is where my understanding of terrorism comes from.

Bringing it back to our local situation, I point out that the arrest and detention without bail of 17 individuals on the grounds that they were planning terrorist attacks against political targets in this country represents a step towards the Guantánamo-isation of national security policy in this country, at least as it applies to political dissent. Like the Cuban soil occupied by the United States military base, it seems that the normal rules of legal rights and due process apparently do not apply to political extremists. Those detained have been remanded without bail for weeks on firearms charges and with all information about their cases suppressed, which assumes that the clear and present danger to national security and public safety posed by these individuals is so great that they are denied the basic right to swift justice and the presumption of innocence reserved to all others—and I will stay right away from mentioning any particular case before the court.

Do the Urewera 17 constitute a viable terrorist threat, and were they engaged in a terrorist conspiracy?

Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would have to say at this point that Mr Harawira has definitely strayed into cases that are currently before the court and is making specific statements about them. I think you know the rule on that, about the separation of powers. This is not like other cases that his colleagues were referring to, which did not result in charges. These cases did.

HONE HARAWIRA: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chairperson, I would willingly stand down from speaking about any particular case if Mr Mapp could say which case it was.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): You see, the member, by referring to them collectively, is still referring to any particular case, so he cannot actually go down that road. He cannot refer to them collectively.

HONE HARAWIRA: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chairperson, I understand the issue about matters being sub judice, but in this situation I am not speaking about a particular case, at all. I have not mentioned the name of one person who has been arrested; nor have I mentioned the details of any one of the cases currently being prosecuted by the police. What I am talking about is the general arrest of people in New Zealand—no names.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am really cautioning the member because we have to be very careful about this, with the issue being sub judice. It might be in the member’s interests to come back to the general purpose of the bill and to try to relate his comments around that, without involving people collectively.

HONE HARAWIRA: From what has surfaced in the public record, the case for terrorism in respect of those arrested to date is debatable. Unlike guerrilla organisations, or terrorist organisations operated by ideologically committed militants pursuing common political causes, those who have been detained are from all over this country and are not practising common operational security. I am talking here in terms of terrorist organisations, rather than of a particular case that is before the court.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is treading on very dangerous ground. He should just get on with his speech.

HONE HARAWIRA: Some of those people emailed, texted, and phone-called with apparent abandon, including so-called recruitment efforts of unaffiliated individuals. They did not have safe houses and did not move constantly to avoid apprehension. They did not hide their bush camps, which were a matter of local knowledge. They did not kill or recruit the unaffiliated people who—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is starting to bring individuals into it now, and he cannot actually do that under law, sub judice.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You anticipated my point of order. At this point the speaker is definitely speaking about allegations, facts, and circumstances relating to these various charges, which have not been heard by a court, as yet. I think it is a breach of the Standing Orders to do so, and I ask that you bring the member back to the bill and to issues that are not before the courts.

HONE HARAWIRA: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chairperson, I want to comment on what the previous speaker just said. All the information in respect of the charges themselves has actually been suppressed by the court. All the information to which I am referring has been garnered from media reports and not from the cases themselves. If they are already a matter of media speculation, then they are surely available to us to speak to in this Chamber.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I advise the member that he cannot actually refer to anything that has been suppressed. I want him to look at Standing Order 111, “Matters awaiting judicial decision”, which states: “Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the House to legislate on any matter, matters awaiting or under adjudication in any court of record may not be referred to—”, and it gives a number of cases. In this case “in any debate” applies. So the member really needs to refer directly to the bill and steer clear of the course he is going down now. Otherwise, we will have to move on.

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek some clarification. My colleague Mr Harawira has referred to issues that have been published by the media. Can I take it that those issues that have been put out in the media already are also under that ruling?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): If they relate to any specific charges, yes.

Eric Roy: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It may be of some help to the Committee to know that there is quite a suite of Speakers’ rulings in regard to this matter. I think it might be helpful if members looked at Speaker’s ruling 28/6, which refers quite clearly to issues where there could be “real or substantial danger of prejudice to the case”, and if you, Mr Chairman, have listened to the debate that has been promoted by Mr Harawira, you will know that he has made quite clear what his intentions are. So can I suggest that, broadly speaking, it is out of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): On that point, too, if I could advise the honourable member, Speaker’s ruling 27/2 states: “The sub judice rule is not intended to inhibit members discussing the law in general, but a particular case before the court may not be referred to. The House is not in the same position as the media when reporting cases.”

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Again, I just seek some clarification. The Standing Orders do apply in respect of, I understand, the rules and regulations as bound by the House. Mr Locke referred earlier to comments made by the Prime Minister that, according to him at least, might prejudice the outcome of the particular cases we talked about. Can I ask whether there is any correlation in respect of the Prime Minister’s comments about those people versus the discussion in the Committee at this point in time.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Again I advise the member that members cannot refer to any cases specifically before the court. That is the situation we now find ourselves in. There is no reason why Mr Harawira should not continue his speech, but he cannot go down the same track as he is now, because he is referring to a case specifically before the courts and we cannot do that. We are not a newspaper.

HONE HARAWIRA: Given the hypothetical case of a number of people being arrested and charged under the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, it seems as if that bill is being invoked even though it was originally oriented towards countering the support for, or financing of, foreign terrorist groups by New Zealanders, and not towards arresting domestic militants in pursuing anti – status quo political agendas. In that regard, the prediction of Māori activists at the time the Terrorism Suppression Act was passed in 2002, that they would eventually be targeted, has come to pass sooner rather than later.

Although, hypothetically, some sectors of the community might argue that it is better to be safe than sorry, and that perhaps it is appropriate that the police act in a preventive capacity, that still begs the question of why people are being held without bail on—hypothetically, of course—minor firearms offences while additional charges are being decided against them. In reality, gangsters, rapists, and child-murderers can be bailed, so why cannot those who might, hypothetically, be held only on firearms charges?

It is incumbent upon the Government, the judiciary, and the police to immediately outline the legal grounds on which such a group might hypothetically be held. Otherwise, the impression could be left that this country is on the slippery slope towards a Guantánamo approach to political dissent—in spite of its very different strategic and geopolitical position—with people being detained on minor charges and on suspicion of something worse while the authorities decide what to do with them.

In dictatorships, the denial of legal rights to those suspected of terrorism is of little concern; in liberal democracies like the one we say we practise as having, and particularly in small open democracies with a history of political tolerance and non-violent protest, it is a troubling development. In dictatorships, security overrides human rights; in democracies, civil liberties are expected to be the priority, with domestic security operations constrained by notions of due process and full disclosure, regardless of the ideological persuasion of those who might—hypothetically—be defendants. The threat of terrorism does not alter that basic premise. The reaction to any hypothetical arrests suggests that the public is right to be sceptical of police motivation, and old wounds are likely to be reopened as a consequence of those actions. If for no other reason than these the police need to make a compelling case, make it soon, or let them all go. Thank you very much.

• Clause 1 agreed to.

• Clause 2 agreed to.