Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) : I move, That the Counter-Terrorism Bill be now read a first time. This bill reflects the need for New Zealand, in a new, more dangerous era of international terrorism, to ensure that we have a comprehensive legislative framework in place to help to prevent, and to deal with, terrorist offending. This bill complements the Terrorism Suppression Act, which came into force on 18 October 2002. That Act put in place legislative powers enabling New Zealand to ratify international conventions on the suppression of terrorist bombing and the financing of terrorism, and to implement Resolution 1373 of the United Nations Security Council, passed following the World Trade Center bombing on 11 September 2001.

This bill allows New Zealand to ratify the final two of the twelve conventions on terrorism passed by the United Nations that were not already implemented by New Zealand. Those conventions relate to the physical protection of nuclear material, and the marking of plastic explosives. The bill makes it an offence to improperly deal with, or obtain, nuclear material, or to threaten to use such material to cause death, injury, disease, or damage. It also makes it an offence to knowingly possess, use, manufacture, import, or export unmarked plastic explosives. The aforenamed offences carry maximum penalties of 10 years’ imprisonment, and a $500,000 fine. The bill provides for extra-territorial jurisdiction, extradition, and mutual assistance requirements, to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the nuclear material convention.

The bill also creates a number of new terrorist-related offences and penalties deemed necessary by an extensive review of existing law, and of potential gaps that might be exploited by terrorists. It becomes an offence to infect animals with disease, intending to cause serious risk to the health or safety of an animal population or major damage to the national economy. The maximum penalty for that is also 10 years’ imprisonment. A similar offence and penalty is created in relation to contaminating food, crops, water, or other products intended for human consumption. Threatening harm to persons or property, or falsely communicating information about danger to persons or property, intending to cause significant disruption to commercial or Government interests, also becomes an offence with a maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment.

It becomes a crime to harbour or conceal a person with the intention of enabling that person to avoid custody or conviction, knowing that or being reckless as to whether he or she intends to carry out a terrorist act or has already done so. It becomes a crime to import, acquire, or possess radioactive material with the intention of using it to cause injury or threaten violence. Both of those offences carry a maximum penalty also of 7 years’ imprisonment. Terrorism becomes an aggravating factor under the Sentencing Act. That will attract higher penalties for crimes committed for terrorist purposes. And the crime of murder, carried out as part of a terrorist act, will carry a minimum non-parole period of at least 17 years.

The third set of changes introduced by the Counter-Terrorism Bill gives new powers to the New Zealand Police and the New Zealand Customs Service. The bill provides a statutory regime for the use of electronic tracking devices as an investigative tool. It requires police or customs officers to obtain from the court a warrant authorising the use of such devices. In circumstances where it is not reasonably practicable to obtain a warrant, an emergency procedure is provided for. The bill ensures that effective enforcement measures can be carried out, and that evidence lawfully obtained using those measures will be admissible. The judge, before issuing a warrant authorising the use of an electronic tracking device, must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect an offence is being, or will be, committed, that information relevant to the commission of the offence can be so obtained, and that it is in the public interest to issue a warrant, taking into account such matters as the seriousness of the offence and the likely intrusion on privacy and property rights. The select committee may wish to consider closely submissions on that issue, including those of the Privacy Commissioner.

The bill also creates powers for the police to require assistance from a person in the execution of a search warrant. Where assistance is necessary, such as providing a password in order to allow the police to access a computer system, a court order may be sought for that purpose, and will be granted if the assistance required is both reasonable and necessary. Failure to assist in accordance with an order will be an offence, if the individual could have reasonably been expected to do so.

The Customs Service’s powers are also enhanced by the bill. The Terrorism Suppression Act last year allowed the freezing of the property of designated terrorist entities. This bill expands on that, allowing the Customs Service to detain property, cash, or cash equivalents intercepted crossing the New Zealand border, if there is good cause to suspect that the owner is a designated terrorist entity, or an entity that may be eligible for designation. There are safeguards to ensure that the exercise of those powers is done in a reasonable way.

Finally, the bill amends provisions of the Crimes Act and the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978, so that evidence obtained under an interception warrant may be used in court so long as it relates to an offence for which an interception warrant is properly given. The definitions of security and terrorism in the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act are amended to make them consistent with the Terrorism Suppression Act.

In conclusion, the bill allows New Zealand to ratify the last remaining United Nations conventions on terrorism not already implemented under New Zealand law. It closes potential gaps that may be exploited by terrorists, by creating new terrorism-related offences and penalties. It gives necessary powers to the Police and the Customs Service to investigate and prosecute those offences. I intend to refer the bill to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to hear submissions from interested parties, and to move that the committee finally report on the bill by 31 July 2003. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) : The Minister’s exposition on and explanation of the bill is certainly laudable. He has thoroughly gone through all the tenets of the international fabric of law that protects our citizens from terrorism. I guess that reflects the whole tone of this Government, does it not? It places absolute confidence in the fabric of international law as being the sole means of our protection. That is how it seems to me. The Government will always see the United Nations rubric as the altar of excellence, and believe that all pronouncements from there must be obeyed, implicitly and explicitly, and that New Zealand can never exercise independent judgment. Yet anyone who has any knowledge of international law will know that it is an incomplete and an imperfect system. There is no global police force. Nation States, individually and collectively, have to enforce international law—and there is some recognition of that on the Minister’s part.

Our dilemma is that when faced with the great challenges of our time, this Government is unable to see clearly where our interests lie. It puts its complete faith in the network—important though it is—of international treaties, but will not do the heavy lifting, along with our friends and allies, that is needed to defeat the centres and sources of terrorism. We have heard in this House of the importance of Operation Enduring Freedom. We understand that; it is important. That was an example of New Zealand working with our friends and allies, but, naturally, it had to be under UN authorisation—as, indeed, this whole bill is about implementing international conventions. But I will ask some fundamental questions of the Government. Does the Government place all its faith in the network of international conventions to secure our freedom, or should we work alongside like-minded allies, as the final protectors of the law, to do so? We are talking about the final protectors of our freedoms.

I say that when faced with that clear choice—and we have been faced with it over the last few months—we need to understand where our protection ultimately lies. It does not lie solely and completely with the United Nations; that would have to be a truly false hope, given the state of the world today. We have seen—and it is right for me to talk about—the importance of the coalition that is currently defeating terrorism, which is one—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will come back to the bill, please.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I appreciate the importance of the bill, and this is actually a discussion that is related to the bill. The bill sits in a context, and that context is about States working together to defeat terrorism. But New Zealand, at this stage, has opted out of doing that. We have heard our Prime Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: There is no problem about using some arguments, as the member has been doing up to now, but this debate is not a general discussion of foreign policy. The question in this debate is that this bill be now read a first time.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Indeed, it is about the bill on counter-terrorism. That is why the diplomatic efforts that the New Zealand Government makes are so central and so crucial to what this bill is about.

I say that when a Prime Minister says that we prefer someone else to be the President of the United States, other than the duly elected President, then a gross breach of diplomatic etiquette has been made. The whole point of this bill is to support and defend a fabric of relationships and conventions. So when the Government cannot even understand that under international law, countries are supposed to respect the decisions that other countries freely make, how can we then trust the faith that this Government puts in this bill? I appreciate your injunction to stick closely to this bill, Mr Speaker, and I will, but that matter is a key issue that confronts this nation.

Mark Peck: What are you saying? Tell us what you’re saying.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I will answer that interjection because I believe that is my right, having been challenged. The member asked me what I am saying. I am saying our Government has turned its back on our traditional friends and allies—the true, ultimate ability for New Zealand to defend itself and its interests—and has placed all its faith in a UN system of protection. That is wrong, and this nation will pay for it because that is not the way to deal with security matters. So, in answer to Mr Peck, that is specifically and clearly what I am saying.

More to the point, I say that if the Prime Minister cannot understand that she is supposed to recognise the duly elected President of the United States, this nation will suffer badly because of that. Mr Peck knows that, which is why he asked that question; he wants that matter to be put on the record. That is apparently what he wants; he wants that to be put on the record. So is that a kind of betrayal by Mr Peck of his own leader? One has to ask that question.

I accept that the measures in this bill are important, naturally. Obviously, New Zealand has a responsibility to work in the United Nations to implement counter-terrorism measures. I commend the Government for its work in Afghanistan on Operation Enduring Freedom. But I say defeating terrorism and its source cannot lie solely in supporting international conventions. That is where the Government has made such a serious mistake in its foreign policy, and this country will suffer for it.

I have read this bill carefully, and I note that one of the key provisions is about the trafficking in nuclear material. Although I see it as important that New Zealand does implement these conventions, I guess in reality New Zealand will not be particularly affected by that issue. I have noticed, also, the amendments to the Crimes Act.

But I just say, in conclusion, that I taught international law for a number of years. While I understand its importance in the international framework, I also understand it is an imperfect system. There is no global police force. The enforcement of international law actually depends on nation States lending their sovereign forces to implement the principles of law. Today we are seeing a coalition of our most trusted friends and allies doing precisely that in Iraq. New Zealand is not there. We will pay a price for that, because we have said we put all our belief in the United Nations.

I just want to make a final point—

Jill Pettis: Dead sons are an awful price, too.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: No one has suggested that—

Hon Mark Burton: What’s your policy. What’re your underlying principles?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: The ethical issue is that international law has to be defended by States willing to work together, and New Zealand opted out of that 2 weeks ago. We will pay a price for that with our friends, for a long time.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) : It was not possible to distil a great deal from that speech, but what it was possible to distil amounted to this: the member on the one hand criticised what he saw as the Government’s reliance on a UN-led rules-based international system, saying at the commencement of his speech that that actually compromised New Zealand’s sovereignty and freedom to make its own choices, and then on the other hand he said that because we are not with our traditional friends and allies in Iraq, we have somehow left ourselves in the international lurch. I say to that member that he cannot have it both ways. If, as he said at the conclusion of his speech, based on his vast international law experience, the issue is all about States working together to resolve international crises, and that we have put our faith in international law, then I say to him that he needs to sort out very clearly where he actually stands. At the moment he stands desperately astride both camps, and as they move further apart, all that I can say to the member is that he will find that becomes an extremely uncomfortable position to try to sustain for very long.

I want to return to the provisions of this bill that is before the House at the moment. I say that the Minister, in his introduction—and I think even the member who preceded me briefly conceded this point; he used words like “exposition and explanation”, although I thought they were broadly the same thing—talked about the scope of this bill. It is certainly true that it does broaden the net, in terms of our ability to respond to particular terrorist situations. It is certainly true that it enables us to complete the implementation locally of a number of international agreements that we have been party to over the years. It is certainly true that in the context of the war against terrorism, however it is defined, this legislation better positions New Zealand to respond. But, having said that, there are some issues in the bill that I believe the select committee will want to pay particular attention to. I speak as the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which will be hearing submissions on this bill.

I will tell the House what issues I see as being of potential concern. In part, I base what I am about to say on our recent experience with the legislation regarding the Kyoto Protocol, where similar types of issues about the protection of individual rights at the expense of the broader rights of the community came into play. Let me explain what I am talking about. There are provisions in this bill regarding the evidence of private communications that have been lawfully intercepted for one purpose being used for another. Although, on the one hand it is arguable that we are codifying a situation that has previously not been properly explained, on the other hand there will be some significant issues about the scope of the changes that are proposed here, and about whether, in fact, there is the prospect of people who are genuinely innocent being caught up in this network. I refer specifically to the bill’s provisions to overturn what is known as the Aranui case, which will “ensure”—and I quote from the explanatory note of the bill—“that evidence of a private communication lawfully intercepted under an interception warrant will be admissible in court if it discloses evidence of any offence for which an interception warrant may be issued”.

In other words, under this bill, evidence obtained on one point can now be extended to include other points if, in other circumstances, a warrant could have been obtained to watch over that particular circumstance. The select committee will want to work its way through that very carefully. On the face of it, in the context of this bill, that is probably justifiable. But we need to be careful that in broadening the net to deal with terrorism issues, we are not broadening it unreasonably in respect of a number of other citizens.

I make a similar comment in respect of the provisions regarding the repeal of certain sections of the misuse of drugs legislation, concerning the use of tracking devices. A point that does need to be stressed is that at the moment there are actually no specific provisions regarding the use of tracking devices. Their use is virtually uncontrolled in that respect. Again, on the face of it, this bill will for the first time introduce some limitations on that. But thereby hangs the problem: defining adequately what those limitations might be, and whether a number of people who are innocent in terms of terrorism charges may well be caught up in that particular net. I think we will want to work our way through that very carefully.

The third area that comes into this category relates to the provisions concerning the accessing of computer data. I say to the House that during the hearing of evidence on the Kyoto Protocol legislation, that particular issue arose very strongly in terms of what might be held on someone’s computer regarding the emission levels of the animals on that person’s farm. Very heated evidence was presented about the level of the test being applied for access to that data, and about the rights of entry to property and the rights of seizure being greater than those applied in many other cases. I think it will be important, when we look at this issue at the select committee, to ensure that the balance is struck at about the appropriate level. We need to ensure that we do not create a situation where there are higher tests than those that apply in many other cases.

The fourth point—and I support this, because I had some discussions with the Minister about this—is that the select committee will be asked to report back on this bill by 31 July. That is a good objective, because it strikes me that it would be somewhat ironic to pass counter-terrorism legislation in response to an international terrorism crisis in a rather leisurely way. That would belie the urgency of the subject. Having said that, given the range of submissions likely to come forward and the timing of this bill, in terms of other priorities that are before the committee at the moment, I sound a warning to the House that it may well not be possible to complete the hearing of evidence within that time, though we will certainly give that every reasonable chance of succeeding.

In the broader context—and I will not stray as widely as the previous speaker did—I make these comments: it is clear that we live in an age that is unparalleled, in terms of the way in which traditional relationships have broken down and terrorism has become very much an unfortunate norm. The old style of conflict between and among States has changed for ever, and we see that portrayed on our television screens constantly at the moment. Therefore, a number of the old rules no longer apply. I do not think that that is an argument for saying we should no longer put our faith in a rules-based system and should revert to the “might is right” argument—and there seemed to be touches of that in the speech made by the member who preceded me.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I did not say that, and the member knows it.

Hon PETER DUNNE: He may not have said it explicitly, but, certainly, the inference that could be taken from his speech was that if we put our faith in a rules-based system, we on the one hand surrender our sovereignty, and on the other hand—

Dr Wayne Mapp: I did not say that.

Hon PETER DUNNE: The member did. He cannot deny what he said. The member said at the commencement of his speech that this Government had placed its faith in the United Nations—

Dr Wayne Mapp: Solely.

Hon PETER DUNNE: —solely, and that as a consequence of that, our freedom, which is, I think, the phrase the member used, has been compromised.

Dr Wayne Mapp: That’s right.

Hon PETER DUNNE: Well, the inference to be drawn very clearly from that is that that is a compromise of our sovereignty. The member cannot argue that on the one hand, and then on the other hand say that the only way of preserving that balance is for us to automatically—and this is my word, not his—join the so-called “coalition of the willing”. The two points are contradictory.

The terrorism issue is part of a broader framework, and it needs to be addressed in that context. We need to get law that is sustainable not only in terms of the immediate set of crises that we face but also beyond that into the future. I think that this bill sets us down that path. It will need to be carefully considered by the select committee, to ensure that we properly assess the balance between the rights of New Zealanders and the protection of our overall security. Then the bill can be passed, later in the year, into law.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : One of wonderful things about having been away from Parliament for 18 years is that one understands how ineffectual Parliament can be, and how highly Parliament thinks of itself. This bill is probably one of the classic examples of that. Here we have the Labour Government trying to legislate away our problems. This legislation will in no way resolve the problems that New Zealand faces today, yet somehow the Labour Government thinks that if it puts up a bill, all our problems will go away, the terrorists will go away, and everything will be sweet and rosy. What a load of nonsense that is!

Whether or not this bill is passed—and New Zealand First will support it—we do not have the means to counter terrorism in New Zealand. The Labour Government has made sure that our defence forces have been run down so severely that we could not prevent an incident like September 11 from happening in New Zealand. We do not have a plane fast enough to catch up with any plane that may be flying into the Beehive, and we do not have a plane capable of shooting down a plane that may be attacking the Beehive. What a load of nonsense this legislation is! The public of New Zealand want action, not just another Labour Government piece of paper saying that the Government will legislate terrorism away and there will be no more problems. Is that not the typical Labour way of doing things! If we have a problem, Labour legislates for it, and believes that is the end of it. That is absolute nonsense.

This bill has been lying around since 17 December 2002. It has no real link to the present state of affairs. This bill came out of the events of September 11, 2001, did it not? That is going on 18 months ago, and finally we are getting some more legislation on this issue. That shows the importance the Labour Government gives even to its usual stance of trying to legislate away a problem. This bill refers to the benefits that it will give us. On page 12 of the explanatory note of the bill, I see that the benefits include “the safety and security of New Zealand and its citizens”. We are talking about safety and security, and the problems that New Zealand would face if it were the victim of a terrorist attack.

I would suggest that the statements made by the right honourable Prime Minister that a Gore presidency in the United States would have had a different consequence for Iraq—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will come back to the bill.

DAIL JONES: That is very important, because I believe that that statement is more dangerous to New Zealand, in a terrorist sense, than would be a suicide bomber. That statement has caused more damage to New Zealand than any suicide bomber could possibly cause. It has damaged New Zealand’s international standing and its relationship with the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia more than any suicide bomber could possibly do. In that sense, in that verbal, smart, academic sense, the Prime Minister has been more damaging to New Zealand than any suicide bomber could possibly be. She sits there smugly, thinking that was a nice, slick remark to make, the type of thing that one could say with a glass of Chardonnay in one’s hand at Auckland University, but really it is more damaging than a suicide bomber would be. The consequences of that comment will last longer than anything we are trying to protect ourselves from with this legislation. The Prime Minister does not understand that, and Mark Peck did not understand it. Wayne Mapp quite correctly made that point. We have to watch what we say, not just try to legislate away a problem.

We do not support the situation in Iraq, of course. We take the view that if we get rid of Saddam Hussein—he might even be dead already, but the Iraqis are still fighting—we must ask what we will get in his place. We will get another dictator, not democracy in Iraq. Democracy in Iraq is impossible. One has to live in the Middle East, or in South Asia, as I did—I was born and brought up there—to know that we will not get democracy in Iraq. The best that will happen in Iraq will be the replacement of Saddam Hussein by another type of dictator, at someone else’s behest. We will not get anything decent in Iraq, so we just have to remember whom our friends are. Although we are disagreeing with the United States and Britain at the moment, we have to look to the future, and that is what the Prime Minister has failed to do. She has the responsibility to make sure that her smart alec words do not do us future damage. But she is doing that. Anything that is in this bill is totally destroyed by the way in which the Prime Minister has behaved, in terms of her smart alec remarks recently.

Some of us have links with what is happening in Iraq. My grandfather was in Basra in 1917 and my maternal grandmother was on many hajj trips, so I have close links with the Middle East and with the situation there. New Zealand First has made it quite clear that we do not want to see the United States, Australia, and Britain going in there to try to find weapons of mass destruction that do not exist. Such weapons do not seem to have been found there yet; we will all wait and see whether the coalition ever finds any. But I say the smart alec remarks of the Prime Minister defeat the purpose of this legislation.

This legislation highlights the way in which we are moving away from our traditional ties. I well remember the lectures on foreign affairs given by Professor Sinclair in 1961 in his course on the history of New Zealand. We did not have much in the way of foreign affairs in 1961, and he was always trying to comment on whether we were breaking away from Britain. I think the events we saw in the House last week were probably the final cutting of the umbilical cord with the United Kingdom, and the Labour Government does not recognise that. The Minister of Defence does not recognise that; he cannot see that we are definitely now an isolated nation. We have to be careful what we say, and I say we do not have to start attacking the President of the United States. We all have our views as to whether George Bush should be re-elected, but those should remain our views. We should not, especially at the highest echelon, make the type of remarks that the Prime Minister was making, which were totally inept.

We have to look ahead to the future. This bill is just part of what we are looking at for the future of New Zealand. I see nothing from the Labour Government that tells us where New Zealand will go from here. Are we just to rely on the United Nations? New Zealand First is looking ahead; we have given close consideration to our view on Iraq. But New Zealand must take the next step, and I think Wayne Mapp was trying to ask where we are to go to, from here. There has been no response from Labour to that. We have had the Minister of Defence chipping away and making smart remarks similar to those of his leader. We have had Mark Peck asking what Wayne Mapp meant. What Wayne Mapp said was very, very clear. We say that we should not go around attacking the United States—or Britain, for that matter. All of us might say that Tony Blair is playing a very close game in a difficult situation.

This legislation is just a counter-terrorism bill. I note the comments from the leader of United Future that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee will look at it very closely. The bill is just symbolic of the state of affairs New Zealand faces today. When I studied international law, one thing that became very clear to me was that international law supports winners. All that international law does is to support winners. If Hitler had won the Second World War, the Germans would have somehow found a way of justifying what they did. International law is all about supporting winners, and we have to be very, very careful of where we go in this very difficult world.

This bill does nothing for the future of New Zealand in the very difficult state in which we find ourselves. The Labour Government would not have a debate on the Iraq situation in this House. It was forced into a debate. It would not put up a motion to the House; it was forced into the debate. This Government has no regard for the future of New Zealand. It was a minor Opposition party—I am sure the member concerned will not mind my saying that, because it highlights the fact—that forced a debate on Iraq. It was ironic, though, that a member of that minor Opposition party, whose ancestor fought so valiantly in the Second World War, did not have a vote cast on her behalf in that debate. I thought it was quite ironic that ACT, which put forward the motion, did not put forward the vote of the descendant of that former soldier, who is, I believe, a member of the ACT party.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member to come to the bill, please.

DAIL JONES: I will just get back to the point. I appreciate the Speaker’s indulgence. New Zealand First will support this bill, but let us not exaggerate its significance. The bill is just a piece of paper. It will not stop a suicide bomber who wants to—

Dr Wayne Mapp: Commit suicide.

DAIL JONES: Commit suicide, yes. I am pleased that we have some improved security arrangements in this building. I look forward to more of them.

GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) : I rise to speak in support of the first reading of the Counter-Terrorism Bill. The misguided burblings of the member who just resumed his seat may have confused some members and, indeed, the listening public, so I would like to clarify the purpose of the bill. The bill implements in domestic law the requirement of two international conventions, the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, and the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection. As the commentary on the bill states, it does so “by providing for: offences involving the use and movement of unmarked plastic explosives: offences involving the physical protection of nuclear material: extra-territorial jurisdiction, extradition, and mutual assistance requirements in respect of those offences”.

Other matters that the bill will pursue, which people may be interested in, include infecting animals with disease, for which a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment is suggested; contamination of food, crops, water, or other products intended for human consumption, for which a penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment is possible; threatening or falsely communicating information about harm to persons or property; harbouring or concealing terrorists; and dealing with radioactive material. Also, terrorism will be an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes under the Sentencing Act. I hope this information has been helpful to members and listeners.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) : I rise on behalf of the ACT party to say that we support the Counter-Terrorism Bill. I say to the previous speaker that just reading out some notes is not actually participating in the debate. It leads me to believe that that member has not read the bill, and I am wondering whether the previous speakers have read it, either. Although I accept the point made by Mr Jones—that it seems counter-productive to be passing a counter-terrorism bill at the same time that we are breaking the relationships New Zealand has with other security organisations—let us look at the bill itself. Of course we need to pass legislation with regard to nuclear materials. I do not think that any MP—although one never knows what the Greens are going to say—is in favour of the importation of plastic explosives. So one can see that we need international cooperation to track down that sort of material, and, yes, we need to pass laws to make sure we can do something about it. But when I look at the bill, I realise that there are serious civil liberties issues involved, which no member has bothered to discuss.

I see that the bill is going to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. Our foreign affairs committee is not known for its knowledge of the law, or for its industry, or for looking after the interests of New Zealand citizens. It has, for example, had a petition from the Chinese community sitting in front of it for months, and it has not bothered to look at it. It does not care about those sorts of issues. It is normally the committee that puts forward an argument as to why it should travel yet again to Australia. I do not believe that that committee, under Mr Dunne’s chairmanship, is a fit and proper committee to be looking at these serious issues.

I want to draw the attention of the House to some of the clauses. I do not know whether the Greens have read the bill, but I think they would be very wise not to vote for it, because it would appear to me that under this bill they are in danger of going to jail for 7 years. That is a very attractive proposition, I guess, for many of us.

Hon Member: What does the bill say?

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: I will read it to the member. I am referring to new section 307A, “Threatening to do harm to persons or property’, which is inserted by clause 7. Subsection (1) of that new section states: “Every one who intends to cause significant disruption to commercial interests or government interests is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years if, without lawful justification or reasonable excuse, that person—“(a) threatens to do an act to cause harm to persons or property: “(b) communicates information about harm to persons or property.” Members should read the Greens’ website. I had it checked again this morning, and if members go to it, they will see that there are links to international organisations that boast about the damage they have done to various commercial interests.

Indeed, there are Green members of Parliament who have a string of convictions for causing damage to property and to commercial interests. The Green Party has boasted about how its members have pulled up genetically engineered (GE) crops, or crops that they thought were GE. I believe that the Greens would also be caught by the clause about contaminating food, crops, water, or other products. There is no doubt in my mind that that provision, as it is read, would have a grave effect upon the Green Party and its friend Greenpeace. It would appear to me, when I look at the description of a terrorist organisation, that even though the Government itself may not have decided to call the Greenpeace organisation a terrorist organisation, it fits the description. There is no doubt about that. The Green Party has broken the law. It has tromped all over commercial interests. Members of the Green Party frequently state that they do not think the law should apply to them, and that they are able to put their political causes ahead of the law.

There is another interesting little provision in clause 7. Section 307A(2), inserted by clause 7, states: “To avoid doubt, the fact that a person engages in any protest, advocacy, or dissent, or engages in any strike, lockout, or other industrial action, is not, by itself, a sufficient basis for inferring that a person has committed an offence under subsection (1).” That is very interesting. It appears to me that the Government is saying that people who cause any property damage are liable to 7 years’ jail but that if those people say they are on a protest, then they are not. It appears to me that if people want to do a terrorist act in New Zealand, they can just shout: “Long live Saddam Hussein!” as they throw their hand grenades at the Devonport naval base, and cause damage. Then when they go to court they can say: “Well, I was just making a protest.” Is that the purpose of the clause? The clause is an absolute nonsense.

I ask the House whether anybody thinks there is anyone on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee who is capable of telling us what those two clauses mean. Tim Barnett would not have a clue. I say to the House that, yes, we need to look at the question of terrorism—and the ACT party is probably stronger on defence than any other party in Parliament—but that we have concerns. [Interruption] The member—I think her name is Georgina Beyer—just made a contribution to the House. She did not once comment on this clause. I do not think she has even read it. I ask that member, as she wants to interject, whether she is concerned about the civil liberties involved in that clause. There is a great silence now. I suspect that when the bill went to caucus she did not ask Mr Goff: “Well, what does this mean? Are we going to send Green MPs to jail for 7 years?” I know that that is a fairly attractive proposition. I realise that the cost of keeping a Green MP in Parliament is about $90,000. If we put one of them in prison the cost would be $60,000, so we would make a $30,000 saving. But the trouble with MMP is that we would just get another one, so what is the point?

Sue Kedgley: What about your MPs?

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: The member asks about my MPs.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: I do not mind answering the interjection, Mr Speaker. My party is actually in favour of the rule of law and property—

Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member but there will be no interjections from that quarter. That is the rule.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: I do not mind handling them, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Well I do.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: Righto—no interjections. I was looking forward to being able to reply. When I look at clause 15, I wonder what the House thinks about it. I am referring to the ability of customs officers to seize property, including cash, without any court order at all. Customs officers can seize cash, and cash includes cash equivalents, including bearer bonds, gemstones, money orders, postal notes, precious metals, and travellers cheques. The bill further states, in new section 47D (3), which is also inserted by clause 15, that: “ the Customs need not return the goods as provided in subsection (2), and may continue to detain them pending a direction by the Prime Minister under section 48 ...”. Do we really want to pass a law that allows the Prime Minister of New Zealand to hold and detain cash that has been taken from citizens? Do I trust the Prime Minister? The answer to that question is no, I do not. As Mr Jones has said, I think that our Prime Minister is capable of making extraordinary errors of judgment. I think that she has made great errors of judgment in the last week. Now we are passing a law stating that our Prime Minister can decide whether cash or material will be returned to citizens. Is the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee going to look at that provision? Obviously it is not, because not a single member of that committee has mentioned any of those clauses. Now that I have drawn them to the attention of Green Party members, I suspect that they might start to realise—because they are in danger. I do not think that they ought to be deciding this issue. We cannot have the terrorists deciding whether they want a counter-terrorism bill, can we? We know what their answer would be.

I believe that this bill has serious civil liberties issues in it. If we pass measures to protect liberty, and if those measures so strong that they take away our liberty, then the bill—which states that it is a counter-terrorism bill—might be a counter-liberty bill. I think that there are serious issues in the bill, and I am disturbed that it is being passed under urgency. I make this final point. Probably, the people who cause the most terrorism in New Zealand are the gangs. They also cause most of the drug problems. We have been told by the police for years that they want to have the drugs classified as class A drugs, and this Government cannot get around to it. Yet here we are, in urgency, rushing through terrorism measures. We are able to act in this area but we are not able to act on the gangs. This bill should be looked at very carefully, and it ought to go to a better committee.

TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) : I must say that I am deeply wounded by Mr Prebble’s suggestion that I am incapable of understanding the words in legislation. I can assure him that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has such towering legal minds as Matt Robson’s and Wayne Mapp’s to advise us on those matters. I also point out that ACT did have the opportunity, when deciding which select committees to go on, to be on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and it chose not to do so.

I want to make three quick comments. Firstly, that committee has dealt with other bills in this range of legislation that we are agreeing in order to make sure that we can effectively translate United Nations conventions into workable domestic law. It is a vital task that we are doing, and we are doing it well. Select committees take an increasingly muscular and rigorous approach to legislation, and I can assure the House that our committee will be inviting and receiving comments from right across the spectrum. I was pleased to hear the Minister say, in his introductory comments on the bill, that when he prepared the legislation he ensured that proper safeguards were in place to ensure that civil liberties were not unduly impinged on. I commend the bill to the House, and I look forward to further debate and to select committee consideration of the bill.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Greens will be voting against this bill, despite some good clauses in it, because it is a fraudulent bill. It is a fraudulent bill because although it is called the Counter-Terrorism Bill, much of the bill has nothing to do with terrorism or counter-terrorism. I am referring to the many amendments to the Crimes Act, the Misuse of Drugs Act, and the Summary Proceedings Act, which have nothing to do with terrorism. They have been sneaked into the bill because the Government knows that if a counter-terrorism label is put on amendments, members will be more reluctant to oppose them.

Let us go into some of those amendments. Clauses 8 and 26 amend the Crimes Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act, but not because of anything to do with terrorism. The explanatory note makes it clear that those provisions are to overturn part of the Court of Appeal’s decision R v 4 years ago. An element of that Court of Appeal decision was that one could not use interception warrants for fishing expeditions because they are an intrusion on our privacy. However, the two amendments in the bill before us will mean that warrants obtained to gather evidence on something like theft will be able to be used to fish for evidence on things not specified in the warrant, like drug offences, or vice versa.

Other amendments are to the Summary Proceedings Act, and they also extend police surveillance powers, with no special reference to terrorism. These involve giving the police broad powers—generally after a warrant is obtained—to use tracking devices to follow people. Most people will think that that is about tracking devices on cars, but it can be tracking devices secreted on any “thing”. Those “things” could be people’s clothing or their bags. Electronic devices are now so small that that is feasible, and the devices could be easily linked up with the global positioning system, so that a person under surveillance could be tracked everywhere he or she goes. This is a very intrusive provision, which up till now has been generally restricted to drug offences, and has now been generalised to cover police investigations into virtually any crime. We have to be very careful about giving police extra powers to invade the privacy of suspects in this way, even if they have to produce a good case before or after the fact to the judge handing out the warrant. We have not heard a good argument for granting this extension of police powers.

An extra search power is also being granted under the same Summary Proceedings Act. A constable executing a search warrant will be able to demand help in getting any information off any computer located on the premises being searched. Unlike what Phil Goff said, the police do not have to have a specific court order for that. If a person does not cooperate, he or she could be up for 3 months in jail. In practice, they will have to give over any encryption devices to the police, or get around any firewalls. Normally, people are not supposed to be forced to incriminate themselves. Here they are being forced to participate in perhaps their own incrimination. It is a big intrusion on our privacy to give constables that generalised power, because a large part of our lives is often on our computers.

One of the Green Party’s concerns with the Terrorism Suppression Act passed last year was that legitimate protesters might be convicted as terrorists, because the definition of a terrorist act was so broad. Under that bill, terrorism could involve causing serious economic loss, or seriously destructing an infrastructure facility in a way likely to endanger human life. This new Counter-Terrorism Bill confirms our fears that protesters are a more likely target of such legislation than terrorists. Clause 7, which amends the Crimes Act, has an even more general provision that could apply to protesters without any specific relevance at all to terrorism. To be liable for a term of up to 7 years, one only needs to intend to “cause significant disruption to commercial interests or government interests” and communicate “information about harm to people or property” in that regard. Surely, that provision would cover many—perhaps most—cases of non-violent civil disobedience, like we saw in the 1981 protests against the Springbok rugby tour. It could also apply to those anti-GE citizens currently talking about taking action against GE crops—the planting of which in New Zealand would so endanger our health and economic future.

No one is saying that people involved in civil disobedience should not be subject to the law, but why do we need this broad, harsh new provision governing what people say? None of the provisions I have mentioned have anything specifically to do with terrorism, but they do represent a serious undermining of our civil liberties. They challenge a number of provisions in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The provision on communicating information on harm to property conflicts with a freedom of expression provision in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That provision states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provision against unreasonable search and seizure should also restrain unreasonable demands that constables will be able to make on people, as regards people having to disclose all the contents of their computers. The provision should also mean that we want to limit the very broad and loose use of search and surveillance warrants. The clause in the current bill, whereby police can get an interception warrant for, say, drugs, and then use that warrant to fish for evidence on other crimes, is not compatible with the spirit of the “unreasonable search” provision in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It could also be used in some cases to persecute people—to keep them under surveillance until the police have something on them, allegedly for some crime. It also challenges our right to privacy under the Privacy Act.

That said, Part 2 of this bill has some good features. This is the part that amends the Terrorism Suppression Act with regard to New Zealand’s adherence to some good international conventions—such as the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection. The Green Party does not quarrel with those conventions. We are a nuclear-free country, so of course we should be implementing legislation controlling the importation, acquisition, possession, or control of radioactive material. We are also clearly against the use and movement of unmarked plastic explosives. These are practical measures against criminal behaviour, using plastic explosives and nuclear materials. It is important that New Zealand is at the forefront of the international campaign against the smuggling of nuclear materials, and adhering to all the appropriate treaties.

However, other clauses in Part 2 amending the Terrorism Suppression Act only reinforce the bad provisions of this Act, which the Greens opposed last year. If the wrong people or groups—that is, genuine political activists—are designated as terrorists, then the harbouring and related provisions in this bill will only reinforce the injustice that could flow from the existing Act. These result from the overly broad definition of terrorism in that Act. There is also the political nature of the process of designating terrorists and terrorist organisations, and the lack of full due process in the appeal system. People can be designated as terrorists without in subsequent appeal situations even having the right to see all the information being used against them—if it be deemed to be classified and secret.

I have focused on the problems with Parts 1 and 3 of the bill that do not relate at all to the Terrorism Suppression Act. The problem with this bill is that it is using people’s revulsion against terrorism to justify a serious undermining of our civil liberties. The Government should think again. If it wants to get us adhering to international treaties on plastic explosives and nuclear materials, it should do that in a separate bill devoted to them, and the Greens will support it. If the Government wants to do a completely different thing relating to general surveillance and search, it should do that in a separate bill, amending the Crimes Act, the Summary Offences Act, and the Misuse of Drugs Act, and let us have a proper discussion free of any scare talk about terrorism. We have to wake up to the fact that the so-called “war against terrorism” is being used as an excuse for a serious infringement of our human rights. That is particularly true under the Bush administration in the United States, but it is also happening in other countries, including New Zealand. The problem should not be made worse, as is being done in this bill. This bill is a compendium bill that mixes up the good bits relating to real dangers with bad bits.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) : I rise in support of this bill. I have listened to the various speeches and the complaints about the civil liberties aspects of the bill, but it is easy to criticise without advancing positive suggestions on how we balance the civil liberty interest with the overall attraction of having a bill that addresses the evils of terrorism.

The major aspect of this bill is the evil of terrorism. The mechanical processes may need refining, but we need suggestions, not criticisms built from ideology and vague dreams. I support the bill; it should go to its second reading. It is a bill that this whole House, in honesty, must support. The select committee is where those criticisms should be raised and addressed, because the overall purpose of the bill is one that this country longs for and needs.

GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) : The National Party supports this bill progressing to the select committee for further consideration. It is with a degree of sadness that we do so. The need in New Zealand for a bill like this tells us that society, as we have known it, has definitely changed, and no New Zealander should be comfortable with that.

We have had some very good speeches in the House this morning. In particular, I refer to the speech of my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp, and to the very fine speech from the Hon Richard Prebble. I found myself agreeing with his speech in great substance. I also would like to make a few comments about the speech that we heard previously from Keith Locke of the Green Party. One of the things that I find amusing about the Greens’ position is that at times it seems to be exceptionally libertarian. The point the Greens do not understand is that every time someone commits an illegal act, threatens someone, or does something to disrupt society, it causes a place like Parliament to enact a law to counter that. What we then see on each occasion is a shortening, shrinking, or closing up of the liberty that we as citizens all experience, and that is part of the sadness I have in seeing this bill come before the House.

Georgina Beyer from the other side decided to give us a reading of the bill, rather than offer any particular thoughts on it. However, in so doing she highlighted some of the extraordinary situations that do exist in New Zealand. For example, it would appear that right now there is no law against infecting an animal with a disease, and sending that animal out into the community, presumably to spread that disease. For example, anthrax could be spread through the community by infecting dogs. Rabies is another example of a disease that could be spread through the community by infecting dogs. We are told in the preamble that right now that is not illegal. It seems to me only sensible that there should be some restriction on people doing that sort of thing. The next part says that it would appear that it is not illegal at the moment to contaminate food, crops, water, or other products intended for human consumption. That seems also somewhat awry, and is certainly something that we do need to correct, and I am pleased that this bill does so.

I want to tell the House about a small incident that happened in my own Christchurch electorate, where householders who turned on their taps were able to smell kerosene in their water. That caused a degree of angst and upset.

Hon Damien O'Connor: What’s that got to do with the bill?

GERRY BROWNLEE: The slow member from the West Coast asks what that has to do with the bill. I simply say to him to stay with it, keep his eyes open, and listen. I know he had a late night.

It is not a silly thing: people in my electorate recently experienced contamination of their water supply. When the investigations were done, it was discovered that a diesel pump had been serviced in the pump station, a small amount of diesel had spilled on the floor, and there had been some seepage through a very fine fissure in the concrete floor above the holding tank. The alarming thing about that is that it shows how very easy it would be for someone to put some very nasty stuff into water supplies throughout this country, and we should have legislation that stops that. As Mr Locke suggested, even if some of the provisions of this bill do not deal directly with terrorism, that would have to be, to say the least, a seditious act—if not a terrorist act by itself—and we should have that cover inside the law. The problem we have with bills like this is that it is very hard to define what terrorism is. If it were easy to define what a terrorist was, we would not have to put up with the sort of nonsense that the Greens put in front of us suggesting that all sorts of liberties are being curtailed because of a bill like this.

I now turn to some of the other benefits claimed for the bill, particularly the one that suggests that by being seen to cooperate fully in global attempts to combat terrorism, New Zealand will be able to maintain its international reputation. At the present time, we are seeing from the Government a complete obfuscation of the role that New Zealand should be playing in the Middle East. In international terms, I think the Prime Minister has let New Zealand down with some of her recent outbursts, described variously today as “ill-considered” or “smart alec”. For a bill like this to come before the House claiming that it is about New Zealand maintaining its obligations, although we have a Prime Minister who gets us out of them at every opportunity, certainly seems to me—we are not allowed to use the word in the House, and I will not—to be presenting a view in one place that is ignored in another.

I conclude my remarks this morning by simply saying that the National Party supports this bill. We do so because society has changed and New Zealanders are at risk. One final point I want to make, in which I am in total agreement with Richard Prebble, is that it seems sad also that we are able to put a bill like this in front of Parliament that deals with a problem that might or might not exist, but a real problem like gangs in New Zealand that—as Richard Prebble quite rightly said—does cause a lot of harm in society, seems to escape the legislative net quite easily.

On that note, I simply say that National looks forward to the select committee process, and it will be supporting the passage of this bill.

DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) : I rise in support of the bill, and I shall focus briefly on two issues that were also addressed by the prior speaker—that is, the importance of controlling those who might otherwise be interested in spreading disease, particularly amongst our animal herd. In reality, that is probably the biggest terrorist threat that New Zealand would face. For example, if foot and mouth disease were to be introduced into New Zealand and we suffered the loss of exports as a consequence, not only would the New Zealand economy be brought to its knees, but we would also suffer an environmental catastrophe in that millions and millions of litres of milk would flow into our rivers. That would be very serious. To the extent that those things can be prevented by law, it is prudent that we take the appropriate legislative steps, and we are proposing to do just that with this legislation. Legislation alone cannot stop those things, but it may act as a deterrent. Certainly, if such a terrible event ever did come to pass, it would be good to know that there were appropriate laws with which to punish those convicted.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police), on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade: I move, That the Counter-Terrorism Bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for consideration and that the committee finally report on the bill by 31 July 2003., referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee

• Motion agreed to.