Smith Lockwood: Motions — Terrorism Suppression Act—Referral of Provisions to Foreign Affairs  Defence and Trade Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Motions — Terrorism Suppression Act—Referral of Provisions to Foreign Affairs  Defence and Trade Committee 
[Volume:423;Page:18558] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 This is an important motion because the legislation we are referring to here the Terrorism Suppression Act is very important legislation. That legislation implemented into New Zealand law two United Nations conventions the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. In addition to that the Act incorporated the requirements on New Zealand relating to the United Nations Security Council anti-terrorism resolution of 2001 Resolution 1372. It is that bit of the Act that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee will be required to look at. It will not be required to examine the entire Act but simply the parts of it that relate to Resolution 1373. 
I guess we have to ask ourselves why this is happening. I have been trying to look back over my notes at the time in 2002 when the legislation was put through the House to find out exactly why this unusual provision was incorporated in section 70. 
John Carter 
: Why was it? 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: That is an interesting question. I think the provision—and I am just trying to hear what my colleague from the ACT party has just said—was really a sop to the Greens because the Government was struggling to get its supporters on board. We know what the Green Party is like. It is a bit different from United Future. United Future we know is soft. Basically it does everything the Labour Government tells it to do. But the Greens do not. They get a bit stroppy from time to time and the Government needs their support from time to time. The Greens got stroppy on this one—I guess because some of their mates are on the fringes of some of the groups that are at times under suspicion—and I think as a sop to them the Government agreed to include this rather unusual provision in section 70. 
So the select committee has to have a look at some specific provisions. It is not being asked to review the entire Act and I think it is really important the House understands that. It is not reviewing the provisions of the Act relating to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings or those relating to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism; it is reviewing only the provisions that relate to Resolution 1373. 
The select committee has to review the operation of those provisions. It must review whether the provisions should be retained or repealed and if retained whether any amendments should be made to those provisions. 
I say at the outset that the National Opposition certainly does not want to see any watering down of these provisions when the legislation goes back to the select committee. I guess we are concerned that the Green Party may try to use the review as a chance to twist the Government’s arm again to try to water down some of these provisions. It is worth reminding Parliament that even though Resolution 1373 was one that followed the outrage of the 9/11 terrorists attacks—and some might be tempted to say that that was back in 2001 and as the world has moved on maybe we do not need these provisions—it was only yesterday that terrorists in Madrid injured at least 42 innocent people by blowing them up with a car bomb. Some might say—the Greens might say—that Madrid is on the other side of the world and anyhow— 
Dail Jones 
: Freedom fighters. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: The Greens might claim that those people are freedom fighters although I personally would find that outrageous. But New Zealanders get involved in these parts of the world. It was only in March last year that British Airways with which a lot of New Zealanders travel cancelled a number of flights because of fears relating to terrorists. By mid-2004—so we are not talking about going back to 2001—the United States was issuing warnings that it was concerned about its homeland security. It was worried about information it was getting from a number of independent sources that indicated that al-Qaeda was planning further attacks against the mainland United States in July. 
I know that the Greens can say we are still talking about the Northern Hemisphere but in October last year the Australian Government issued a warning that Australians should be wary of travelling to the Philippines and to certain parts of that country because of the threat of terrorist attacks there. That is right down in our part of the world. Part of that warning issued by the Australian Government related to kidnapping both in Indonesia and Malaysia. So here we are right down in the Asia-Pacific region of the world which is our region. The Australian Government’s statement of October last year warned that the terrorist groups based in the Philippines “had the capacity to operate across a wide area”. 
So just in the last 12 months there has been a range of terrorist threats and actions that make it very clear that even though under section 70 Parliament must refer those provisions relating to Resolution 1373 in the Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002 back to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee the National Opposition makes it very clear that in so doing we are not supporting that move because we think those provisions should in any way at all be watered down. 
 There is no evidence we are aware of that would indicate that these provisions are being used in any way that is contrary to the security interests of New Zealand and I would think that the bulk of the public would not want to see this Labour Government have its arm twisted in any way by the Greens to water down any of the provisions in this legislation. 
There is no question—and in fact I think the next item on the Order Paper looks at tightening one or two of the provisions in the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill—that in reviewing what is in that Act the Foreign Affairs and Trade Committee should be looking to see what should be tightened if anything rather than in any way considering a watering down. 
Listeners may wonder why the National spokesperson is so concerned about this. I think all my colleagues will remember the speeches made by Keith Locke the good Green member when this legislation went through the House initially and we heard all his arguments as to why some of these provisions should not be included in this legislation or should be watered down. It worries us that once this measure is back at a select committee the Government will be vulnerable to the arm-twisting of the Greens on whom the Government—although the Greens are not a coalition partner—depends for votes on confidence and supply. We know that from past experience for example with the Penlink toll road legislation when the Greens said no and the Government which had initially supported it buckled. The Government buckled when the Greens said no. 
We are making it clear to this Parliament that this Government must not buckle regardless of how the Greens may try to twist its arm on this. Our country’s security the interests and the safety of our people as they travel the world—and our people travel a lot—are essential; wherever they may be they must be safe and this legislation is a vital part of New Zealand’s role in making sure our people as well as the citizens of the free world are as safe as they can be in their innocent activities. I make those points to make it very clear that we will not tolerate any attempt by the Greens to water down any of the provisions in this very important legislation.