McCully Murray: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
McCully Murray: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2007. Volume:643;Page:12670. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 The National Party supports the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. Indeed we have been calling for some time for amendments to make this country’s counter-terrorism machinery more workable. We have been calling for better precautionary use of that machinery as nations like Australia and Canada have used similar machinery to ensure that all sensible steps are taken to counter international terrorist activity. 
This debate is given greater significance as a result of events of this month. Those events and the controversy that surrounds them in no way weaken our support for this bill or for the counter-terrorism machinery contained in the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002. The bill does not in itself as the Minister has told the House extend in any substantive way the powers of the State to act against the threat of terrorism. Those powers are contained in the principal Act of 2002. They include the sanctioning of steps by the authorities to intercept communications weapons and funds of groups designated as terrorist entities. 
This bill streamlines the machinery by which designations of terrorist entities are made and renewed. The current provisions are in many respects unworkable and impractical. They provide for a lengthy process for the designation of terrorist entities under UN Resolution 1267 when it is obvious that we should merely follow the lead that has been taken by the United Nations Security Council in making such a designation. 
With regard to designations made of New Zealand’s own initiative under UN Resolution 1373 the current procedures treat the renewal of designations as matters that are capable of being dealt with through a judicial process according to a normal standard of proof in the courts. The reality is that the process of making and renewing terrorist designations must be a matter for the exercising of subjective judgment based upon intelligence information and other material much of which cannot be allowed into the public domain. 
The National Party accepts that the appropriate authority to make and renew designations under UN Resolution 1373 should be the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service and is the elected official most fully and regularly briefed on security matters. We do have some concerns about the manner in which this process has worked under the original Act since it was passed in 2002 and I shall come to that a little later in these comments. That does not change in any way the fact that in terms of the design of our counter-terrorism machinery the Prime Minister is the logical person to carry the responsibility for designations of terrorist entities under UN Resolution 1373. 
In recent days there has been considerable comment—some of it highly emotive—about the actions of the New Zealand Police in arresting a number of individuals on charges under the Arms Act and the Crimes Act with consideration being given to further charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 presumably under section 13 which creates an offence of participating in a terrorist group. The manner of the police actions and the public references to the prospect of charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act have raised the stakes in this case well above the ordinary enforcement of the Crimes Act or the Arms Act. 
My colleagues and I will not buy in to debate or speculation as to whether the police were justified in taking this course or whether their actions have generally met the standard that should be expected of them by this Parliament. At this stage of proceedings we cannot possibly know and the members of the public and the members of this House who have been so critical of the police cannot possibly know either. We owe it to the law enforcement authorities to the public and to ourselves to wait to allow the facts to emerge in the courtroom and then to make considered and professional judgments based upon those facts. 
Having said that I want to give some reassurance to the members of the public and the members of the House who have expressed concerns about these events. In providing the authorities with a tool kit to deal with the threat of terrorism it is a brutal reality that this Parliament potentially overrides the civil liberties of some individuals or groups. This Parliament has done so because we have been persuaded that the threat of terrorist activity and the consequent danger to the safety of the public is such that we have little choice but to sanction some carefully considered intrusion into the civil liberties of some individuals or groups considered to be a risk to the safety of the New Zealand public. We can take some comfort in this regard from the fact that the steps we have taken are considerably less intrusive than those taken in jurisdictions like the United States or United Kingdom where there is a perception of a higher level of terrorist risk. 
From the select committee proceedings in relation to this bill and from the commentary of recent days it is clear that there will always be debate about where to draw the line in these matters. I personally remain comfortable with the evidence I have seen that we have the balance right in this country in this respect. But having provided this tool kit for the authorities to fight terrorism it would be a very serious matter indeed if it was misused. At this stage it is in my view appropriate that members of this House should operate on the presumption that the police have raised the stakes in this recent operation because there has been good reason for them to do so whilst remaining alert to any evidence that might emerge to the contrary. 
As one who supports the need for strong effective counter-terrorism legislation I accept that there is a particular responsibility on myself and others to scrutinise the actions of the authorities in relation to the use of this legislation when the facts are on the table to make such scrutiny possible. After those facts emerge and after such scrutiny is possible if it does appear that the police or other authorities have got it wrong then obviously there will consequences—very serious consequences indeed. But I believe we should leave the matter there until those facts emerge. 
In reporting back the findings of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee the National Party has taken the unusual step of submitting a minority report to the House. It is an unusual step to take in relation to a bill that we support but we have done so for very strong and good reasons. Since the original Act the Terrorism Suppression Act was passed in 2002 in the wake of the terrorist action in the United States New Zealand has met all its obligations under UN Resolution 1267 and has duly designated as terrorist entities all 450-odd individuals or groups that have been so designated by the United Nations Security Council. However in relation to UN Resolution 1373 which is the resolution that relates to non-Taliban or non-al-Qaeda - related terrorist entities our track record simply does not stand up to scrutiny. 
Since 2002 Australia has designated 88 individuals or groups as terrorist entities so that its enforcement authorities are licensed to employ the provisions of its terrorism suppression legislation to the supervision of those persons or groups. Canada has designated over 50 terrorist entities under similar provisions in its law. Yet to date New Zealand has not designated a single terrorist individual or group under UN Resolution 1373. In practice that means that groups like the Tamil Tigers Abu Nidal Organisation al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade Hamas Hezbollah and many others are designated as terrorist entities in Australia with their actions therefore circumscribed by the attention of the Australian authorities but in New Zealand not one of those organisations is so designated under our legislation. 
 Even if we take the charitable view that there is no direct threat from terrorist activity to members of the New Zealand public I think members would have to accept that Australia could not be said to be in such a situation. Clearly the Australian Government apprehends that there is a risk of terrorist activity to members of its public. Clearly members of the Australian administration have taken the view that these 88 groups should be the subject of some attention from its law enforcement authorities. 
Given our proximity to Australia and given the openness of our border with Australia it simply does not make sense that New Zealand should be operating from such a different page than that from which the Australian authorities operate. So in supporting this legislation National takes the opportunity to draw the attention of the House and the public to the fact that this tool kit for our authorities to deal with the threat of terrorism is only as good as the Prime Minister making the designations that the legislation makes possible. Those designations under Resolution 1373 have not been made in this country and we say to New Zealanders that this legislation can only be as good as the Prime Minister who has the tool kit to be able to enforce the law.