Locke Keith: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Locke Keith: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21650] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I think the last comments by the previous speaker are valid. There has been too much name-calling in this Committee in the discussion on this bill. It does not help when people say as members have said about the Greens and about me in particular that we support terrorists. None of us in this Committee support terrorists. Whenever any terrorist outrage has occurred the Green Party has been at the forefront of condemning it from September 11 onwards as every member knows. The question is how best to fight terrorism and how not to breach human rights in the process. The question is how a country is to move from a situation where there has been a civil war in which terrorist activities have been conducted on both sides such as in the Sri Lankan civil war—in which there has been a ceasefire since late 2001 which is very good—to a real peaceful long-term settlement. The United States designation of the Tamil Tigers as a terrorist organisation has hindered that process. A donors’ meeting held in New York attended by representatives from countries all around the world to give donations for reconstruction during the ceasefire to both the Tamil Tiger side and the Sri Lankan Government side was held up because under the designation the United States would not let a Tamil Tiger representative attend. 
That is the practical consequence of that sort of provision and that is why it is wrong to move from the situation under the existing Act where one is prohibited from funding terrorist acts to a situation where one is prohibited from giving money that one knows will benefit a terrorist entity that carries out or has carried out terrorist acts. That applies quite directly to groups like the Tamil Tigers given the background of the United States designation and the way it is half-treated as correct in New Zealand by some Government agencies because of the way the amending clause in the bill is expressed. The report back from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on the bill states: “However we are now satisfied that neither the intent nor the wording of the provision catches the funding of legitimate human rights humanitarian or democratic groups acting solely in this way.” The word “solely” was put in specifically to cover groups like the Tamil Tigers which in the past has conducted some terrorist activities or the African National Congress which did conduct terrorist activities or people like Xanana Gusmao whom we now hold in high respect but whose organisation did carry out terrorist activities that affected civilians. 
Rightly or wrongly when we are dealing with movements that reflect a nationality like the Tamil Tigers—and I am critical of the lack of democracy promoted by the Tamil Tigers—how can we move forward as Norway and many other countries are trying to move forward the situation in Sri Lanka if we try to stop and criminalise anyone who is part of that process? That includes aid organisations like Oxfam and Unicef which I saw in the Tamil areas of Sri Lanka when I visited helping to build different social structures—maybe including the police force and the court system of the de facto Government. Overseas agencies that we widely respect were helping to move the process forward towards the establishment of a democratic Sri Lanka where everyone can live together. This bill is specifically geared to stop that sort of thing from happening. That is the reality. It will not just stop people from funnelling funds through front organisations for al-Qaeda. 
Of course when we are talking about al-Qaeda the issue is quite easy because nobody here gives the slightest bit of support to al-Qaeda. Everyone wants that organisation to be destroyed. Everyone wants the maximum police action taken against that organisation and against any real front organisation for it—we all agree on that. But if we go the other way and forgo human rights in prosecuting campaigns against terrorism we actually work in the terrorists’ favour. As Lord Hoffman said in the House of Lords: “The real threat to the life of the nation in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these.”—laws that breach human rights—“That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory.” Do we want to give the terrorists such a victory today by bringing in laws that will inhibit us in helping places like Sri Lanka or parts of Indonesia to move towards social justice and a peaceful resolution of conflict?