McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3543] 
6.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Can she assure New Zealanders that the Security Intelligence Service and other law enforcement authorities have a robust process for identifying potential terrorists and denying them access to New Zealand; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes. The New Zealand Police which has responsibility for coordinating the terrorist designation processes for individuals and organisations advises me that the process is a robust one. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Will the Minister confirm the statement of Assistant Police Commissioner Jon White the head of counter-terrorism on Radio New Zealand this morning that the 88 terrorists designated by Australia and those designated by Canada on those countries’ own initiatives “also cover ones listed by the United Nations and have thereby been designated by New Zealand” or does she accept that Assistant Police Commissioner White is completely wrong in that statement and that although Australia and Canada have designated the approximately 450 terrorists listed by the UN Security Council each of those countries has also designated further terrorists who have not also been designated by New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In respect of the last part of the member’s question I can confirm that that is the case. However what is unable to be confirmed is Mr McCully’s figures of 88 terrorists on an Australian list and 50 on a Canadian list. The website will tell the member that in fact Canada and Australia have designated the UN list as New Zealand has although in the process of doing so those countries have also included—in Australia’s case—19 entities. However 15 of those entities are already on the UN list which means that four on the Australian list are not on a New Zealand list. 
Rt Hon Helen Clark 
: Four? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Four—not 88. Let us take the case of Canada. Mr McCully said there were 50 on its list; 39 entities are listed and 15 of them come off the UN list which leaves 24 not 50. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Is the Minister concerned that the assistant commissioner of the New Zealand Police who is responsible for counter-terrorism whom the Prime Minister has identified as the chief adviser on terrorism matters does not understand the two different categories of terrorist that are defined in the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 and as a consequence was this morning labouring under the completely incorrect impression that New Zealand had formally designated the 88 people designated by Australia as terrorists whom we in fact have not so designated at all; if so what does she propose to do? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have confidence in Assistant Police Commissioner White. I do not have confidence in that member who I believe is using figures to make political mischief. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Will the Minister now expect that Assistant Police Commissioner White having realised his serious error should consider urgently recommending to the Prime Minister that she now designate the 88 people designated by Australia as terrorists whom he thought we had already designated but in fact had not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I realise the member had already written out his question so obviously he did not listen to my answer. But I am happy to table the information I have been provided that shows there are not 88 terrorists on an Australian list. In fact as I said there are 19 and 15 of them are already on the UN list which leaves four. I have been provided with that information; I am happy to table it so that the member can read it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister aware that the leader of the National Party for the time being Don Brash was fully briefed by the intelligence and security people on Rayed Mohammed Abdullah then declared himself to be happy with that briefing and the form of enforcement; and what does she conceive this question to be other than a perennial attempt by that member to be the leader of the National Party or a vote of no confidence in the leader of the National Party? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think the answer is all of the above. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Would the Minister accept that given the relatively open border between New Zealand and Australia it would be a very good idea if our anti-terrorism authorities were working off roughly similar lists of suspected terrorists under our respective terrorism suppression legislation and can she explain to the House why this is not the case? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In fact New Zealand works very well with a number of countries and they do work off the same designated terrorist list. In fact the man who is the subject of this question is on no designated terrorist list. What the member is trying to do is to confuse a designated terrorist list with the fact that a man who was not on a designated terrorist list entered New Zealand. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: What confidence can New Zealanders have in this country’s counter-terrorism arrangements when the assistant commissioner of police in charge of counter-terrorism does not know who is on our list of terrorists how they got on that list or who is on Australia’s list and when the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service runs for cover rather than answering simple and straightforward questions in the House? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: What I find interesting is that the Leader of the Opposition has been briefed on this case and it appears that he is getting someone else to fire his bullets—because that member has been briefed. What is also interesting is that Assistant Police Commissioner White knows exactly what he is talking about. That member even in the time that he has been asking these questions has changed his tack. I put my faith in Assistant Police Commissioner White not in Murray McCully who is trying to make a political point. 
Keith Locke 
: Would we not all know a lot more about the Ali case from the Government from lawyers and even from Mr Ali himself if he had been arrested and put through the normal deportation process rather than being summarily expelled under the draconian section 72 which had been used only once in 1991 to expel a Russian spy; would it not have been better to go down the normal deportation track particularly when the Minister of Immigration has assured us more than once that Mr Ali did not pose an immediate threat to our security? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think that what should reassure New Zealanders is that this man was detected and deported. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it the Minister’s understanding being part of the process as the responsible Minister that there was a briefing by the security and intelligence people of the leaders of various political parties Dr Brash being one of them; and does she understand that therefore if Dr Brash was unhappy with it he would have expressed his view on that briefing and that his failure to do so would surely bring some obligation upon other members of his caucus to either doubt the leader or keep their mouth shut? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have to say I totally agree with the member. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. For the sake of the House’s information I want to say that I made it clear that I had been briefed by the head of the SIS and I was very content with the action he had taken—nothing to do with when the guy came into the country at all. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order but it is a point of information. [ 
Interruption 
] He is not the only member who has made a point of order in this House that was not valid. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I seek leave to table some documents. First I seek the leave of the House to table a transcript of Assistant Police Commissioner Jon White speaking on Radio New Zealand this morning. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the Australian list of names that have been designated under UN Resolution 1267 and UN Resolution 1373. The list contains the designated names that I referred to in my question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: You have identified the document. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I seek the leave of the House to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 350 in order to give the House some undertakings in respect of allegations made about the confidential briefing given to the Leader of the Opposition. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is it personal to the member? 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Absolutely; I understand the Standing Order. In view of the accusation that was made across the House I wish to give an assurance to the House that after the Leader of the Opposition had received his confidential briefing from the director of the SIS he rang me to tell me that he had received a confidential briefing about a matter upon which I might be approached for comment. He told me that he had been briefed on it felt unable to tell me anything further and would appreciate it if I made no public comment on that matter if journalists approached me. I give the House an undertaking that Dr Brash has not at any time discussed with me the contents of his briefing from the director of the SIS. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table an OPEC document that details the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. It explains why both National and Labour want to keep Saudi Arabia visa-free despite security concerns. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise this point in order to bring some accuracy to the House and I ask you to bear with me. I am raising it in order that the House’s records be accurate. Throughout question time both yesterday and today there has been much reference to a Mr Ali. The name of the person in question as far as I am aware is Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali. After that he will have a surname which will be his tribe—al followed by whatever it is. To continue to refer in the House to this man as Mr Ali is actually to refer to his great-grandfather whose name was Ali. In the Muslim world the first name is the given name so his given name is Rayed; the second name Mohammed is the name of his father—so he is the son of Mohammed. Because other people who look at our records will see that we have been inaccurate I ask that we give some consideration to this. As we insist that we call each other by our proper names and as we insist that when we refer to public officials we name them correctly I ask that in this House we at least get our record straight and refer to this man as Rayed or as Mr whatever his tribe name is and not continually refer to him in the House record as Ali because that is not his name—it is the name of his great-grandfather. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I am sure that members will have taken note of the point.