Hide Rodney: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
Hide Rodney: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12997] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I begin by taking issue with one thing that my colleague the Hon Peter Dunne said about the fact that if we did not pass this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill there would be a problem with terrorist designations lapsing. I do not think that is correct because section 35(2) of the current law allows for the High Court to extend those designations for another 3 years. So I think it is not correct that we need to be rushing off to pass this bill and I thank my colleague Mr Keith Locke for drawing my attention to that. 
I heard Mr John Hayes call out that it is Parliament’s job to make the law. Well it is Parliament’s job to pass the law but I do not think that Mr Hayes is putting himself up to be writing it to be doing the analysis to be preparing it— 
John Hayes 
: We can cope. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: He says he can cope but I think that quite often for Parliament it is not bad to get the help of the officials and indeed of the commissions. I just want to draw Mr Hayes’ attention to what the Solicitor-General said. He said the law Parliament passed with the help of Mr John Hayes’ officials— 
John Hayes 
: I wasn’t here in 2002. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The law was passed with the help of officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Solicitor-General said that the law is “unnecessarily complex incoherent and as a result almost impossible to apply to the domestic circumstances observed by the Police in this case.” We have to ask ourselves why we are pouring more law on top of that mess. Why are we not taking immediate action and sending what we have now to the Law Commission and getting that fixed? 
I have to say that I was very very disturbed to hear the Minister of Justice say that the majority of New Zealanders think it is OK to round up some people running wild in the Ureweras and lock them up. Since when has justice and the question of who should be locked up been decided without evidence without facts without charges being laid and without a case going to court but instead by a public opinion poll? When was that ever the case? That statement alone has to give us pause for thought about the way we are promoting the so-called suppression of terrorism. If the majority of parties in this House say: “Let’s just round up those who are suspected without knowing the evidence or the facts and lock ’em up without a trial without a proper charge being laid and without knowing the case against them.” and if the Minister of Justice says: “Oh it’s OK because the majority of people say it’s OK.” then I have to say that I fear for the ACT party because under this law anyone could be rounded up. I say to the people of New Zealand that if it is the Tuhoe people this week who will it be next week under this legislation. 
I am amazed that we are debating in this House an amendment bill that will give unparalleled powers to the Prime Minister of New Zealand. The very idea that a Prime Minister of New Zealand can declare a person guilty of a crime without the person knowing even what the charge is and without that person knowing the facts and the very fact that that person’s assets can be seized as a consequence— 
John Hayes 
: She can’t do that. Read the law. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I say to Mr Hayes that I have read the law. I have also read the Solicitor-General’s report and I have to say that I am not sitting here feeling very proud about the legislation Mr Hayes supports. 
I say this to the House: what would Sir Robert Muldoon have done with this legislation in 1981? Surely he would have declared the protest organisations to be terrorists. Surely he would have declared that their assets be seized. I ask Mr Hayes where the rule of law is in that. Does Mr Hayes not believe that we should live in a society where we know what the laws are and where we know what the charge is if we break the law? Should we not get to hear the evidence against us before we are punished and declared guilty? Should we not get to have our day in court? If Mr Hayes believes that then he cannot vote for this bill. This bill does away with the fundamental rights of every New Zealander does away with the rule of law and puts arbitrary power in the hands of the Prime Minister. Why we would do this in this House in this country which professes itself to be free I cannot imagine. 
If we are going to fight terror we have to do it on the basis of civilised values because that is what the terrorists oppose. They oppose the rule of law. They oppose civil society. The very act of passing this law allows the terrorists to win because it means that New Zealanders are surrendering their freedoms and the opportunity they should have to live their lives as they choose without arbitrary arrest. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I know that Mr Ron Mark thinks we should arrest anyone who disagrees with him that we should arrest people and then say who can be let loose and that anything that gives the police and the State more power is a good thing but that is not what the ACT party is saying. Yes we have to fight terrorism but we also have to watch the State. We have to watch the abuse of State power. And we have to watch for the abuse of that power by politicians. That is what the rule of law means. 
This amendment bill overturns all of that. The day this bill is passed is a day when in a rather large way we surrender our freedoms to the terrorists by adopting a law that is unnecessary. Every New Zealander is entitled to know what the law is. Every New Zealander is entitled—if he or she is supposed by the authorities to have done something wrong—to know what the charge is. Every New Zealander is entitled to hear the facts of the case against him or her. And every New Zealander is entitled to have his or her day in court and to have the case heard before an independent judiciary. 
This law goes absolutely against that. It is actually a fascist law—a law that puts the power in the hands of politicians to decide who should be guilty and who should be free. On that basis the ACT party proudly opposes the bill and has to say that it is very disappointed in the House for supporting such abysmal and abhorrent legislation.