Franks Stephen: Motions — Terrorism Suppression Act—Referral of Provisions to Foreign Affairs  Defence and Trade Committee 
Franks Stephen: Motions — Terrorism Suppression Act—Referral of Provisions to Foreign Affairs  Defence and Trade Committee 
[Volume:423;Page:18563] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I wanted to hear the speech of the Green member Keith Locke before I spoke partly because of the dire warnings from Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith when he spoke. He seemed to feel there would be some kind of infection of mass subversion from Mr Locke and he warned the House against listening to him. I was challenged considering how closely Mr Locke and I are located to keep my independence and to be sure I was not infected by whatever it was that Dr Smith was so fearful of. 
I think section 70 is a sensible provision in terms of the Terrorism Suppression Act. It was the least that Parliament could do to reassure itself that it was not creating a law on our statute book—and quite truthfully it was being created in a bit of a panic in a great rush—that would erode the very liberties that we were so keen to ensure we protected. So I do not subscribe to the mocking tone that Lockwood Smith adopted. I am pleased to hear the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee say that the committee will take the job seriously as I believe there is a serious job to be done. 
I do worry about the poorly defined terms in the Terrorism Suppression Act. We have to remember that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. We have had many occasions when we have applauded people who have been accused by the Governments of their countries—often oppressive Governments—of all sorts of offences and given all sorts of labels including that of terrorist. We should remember that the Indonesian Government for example would have been delighted to be able to force New Zealand to implement provisions like those in the Terrorism Suppression Act to lock in its rule of East Timor. The offence of harbouring could well have been claimed by the Indonesians in terms of people who supported the man who is now the leader of East Timor. 
So I want the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to take its task seriously. I want it to go very carefully through the definitions to make sure that in that initial rush of fear we did not put in the legislation terms that were unnecessarily wide. I want it to make sure that New Zealand citizens are not subject to extradition at the request of Governments that do not respect human rights in the same way that we do. 
I am mindful that this issue was triggered by a designation by an international body that we cannot have confidence in. The international body that triggered this issue is the same body that ran the oil for food programme. There was corruption in that as had been alleged by people I thought were conspiracy theorists the oil for food programme was feeding not just fat cats aligned to Iraq but fat cats— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The resolution was moved by the United States and supported unanimously by the Security Council. What is the member talking about? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The Hon Phil Goff is attacking my reference to the corruption in the oil for food programme. He says it was moved by the United States. That instinctive anti-Americanism comes out in Mr Goff—that knee-jerk feeling that if someone criticises something raised by the United States it immediately falls into a them-and-us category—people are either for the US or against it. The member knows that the ACT party generally supports the firm line the US takes. He thinks he can destroy an argument in this House by pointing out that I am criticising something originally sponsored by the US. 
What we find of course is that this legislation did go far too far. In fact when one reads it one sees that things like the campaign in World War II to raise funds to buy a bomber for Britain would have been illegal in New Zealand because the bombing campaign was blatantly aimed at destroying the morale of the German people. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Rubbish! 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Well Mr Goff should read his own legislation. He should read the definition of terrorism. He will find that if it is an act aimed at destroying the morale of a people then it can come within that definition. I hope the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee will come up with recommendations that enable us to target the kinds of terrorists that we want to target and that will ensure that the legislation does not inadvertently catch people whom we might consider champions against oppressive Governments. 
I am concerned to know whether the court protections built into this bill are effective. I want to know who has been checking just how much money has been confiscated or detected. I hope the select committee will ensure that it is satisfied that this law distinguishes properly between New Zealand citizens and foreigners. 
I know that this Government is a soft touch. The whole of the terrorist world probably knows that the New Zealand Government opened its arms to refugees without properly checking them. To people whom Australia would not accept the New Zealand Government said: “Come along join us.” There is quite a bit of cant and there is quite a bit of pretence in this legislation. It looks tough on paper when in fact it is not tough in practice. The immigration policy we run is Australia’s flapping back door. That is probably of more comfort to terrorists than any amount of money that would be collected in a country like New Zealand and sent off to terrorist organisations. I hope the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee actually tries to inquire into the relative threat represented by an immigration policy that patently pretends not to notice whether immigrants are drawn from terrorist-sponsoring populations compared with the threat represented by the raising of money in New Zealand for people designated by the United Nations—by whoever is the ruling group in the United Nations—as terrorists. 
I am very mindful of some of the huge ironies in United Nations’ decision-making. Some of the human rights committees for example end up with people from countries like the Sudan sitting on them. Those countries are the worst abusers of human rights in the world at the moment probably and people from them sit on those committees. So I want to know that New Zealand has not been signed up to a regime that means we have a knee-jerk obligation to jump to the order of countries like the Sudan and its colleagues simply because they have managed to have an organisation designated as terrorist. 
I want to know that China for example cannot some day order us to suppress Falun Gong. If those people are peaceful if they offend no New Zealand law yet they offend the Chinese Government we want to make sure that this legislation cannot be used by the Chinese Government to put the New Zealand Government’s arm up its back and make it suppress them. I want to know that the French Government’s bombing of the  
Rainbow Warrior 
 would fall within the definition. As I look at it I am not sure what this country would have done about all the citizens of New Zealand who were trading with and giving aid and comfort to France knowing that the French Government had conducted a terrorist act on our property. 
I want to know that this measure is in New Zealand’s interests and not simply in the interests of Phil Goff ensuring his eventual succession to the Labour Party leadership by kowtowing to enough United Nations requirements to ensure that the Prime Minister is booted upstairs to a new job. It might be very difficult for Phil Goff to come up with a way of taking over the leadership unless he can get the Prime Minister enticed offshore. But certainly jumping to the order of the United Nations sticking really fierce provisions on paper and not actually looking after New Zealand’s interests in practice are things that have marked this Government’s approach to foreign affairs. 
This legislation was something we should have done something we should have put into our law but I want the select committee to look at it very closely because it is certainly plain that some of the provisions were hastily drawn up. They are very broad. They probably catch things that they should not. Indeed the Terrorism Suppression Act admits as much. When an Act has definitions then states that for the avoidance of doubt they do not extend to someone who is advocating democratic Government we can see that the drafter was worried that he or she might have caught things that no one really wanted to catch. This review in cool hindsight is precisely what was contemplated by Parliament. Parliament was worried when it put section 70 into this Act. We want it to be done in a proper way.