te Heuheu Georgina: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — First Reading 
te Heuheu Georgina: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8512] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to talk to the first reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. National supports this bill. National thinks it is very important that New Zealand shows itself to be serious about terrorism. It is said that terrorism proceeds when diplomacy has failed. Unless the world’s leaders and diplomats vow to work harder to get to the underlying causes of terrorism then it is the case that we have to take steps to make sure we play our part in combating terrorism worldwide and also to make sure we protect our own citizens right here in New Zealand. 
I was a bit surprised at the ACT party’s opposition to this bill. I could not quite make out why that was the case. I think the speaker for ACT gave a false impression of the Prime Minister’s role in this. It is not that I am defending the Prime Minister as such but within 2 years we will probably have a new Prime Minister one from this side of the House. It seemed to me that the member might have created some confusion outside this House as to the role of the Prime Minister. In respect of United Nations Resolution 1267 the Prime Minister actually has no role no choice. It is mandatory for New Zealand to be involved in that mechanism. That is why this bill and the changes proposed are important. Currently New Zealand is required to designate United Nations - listed terrorist entities under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 before they become subject to the provisions of the Act. This bill amends the 2002 Act by removing this designation process and automatically applying the provisions of the Act to terrorist entities. 
As I say this change underlines the mandatory nature of New Zealand’s legal obligations under the Security Council’s al-Qaeda and Taliban sanctions. The Prime Minister has no part to play in that. We must do it; we have no choice. It is part of our being good global citizens. Until the world’s leaders and diplomats find some way to get to the bottom the causes the root of terrorism then we must take proper steps to make sure that those who would threaten the world—the globe—with their terrorist activities are known to us and are kept an eye on. That is part of UN Resolution 1267. 
The other mechanism of course is that under UN Resolution 1373 in which case it is the Prime Minister who designates those entities that are suspected to be of some danger in the sense of terrorism to either New Zealand or our neighbours. We would hope that the Prime Minister would take that responsibility very very seriously. National members certainly will when we are in Government in a short time. 
I echo the comments of my colleague the Hon Murray McCully—although perhaps not quite as vociferously as him—that it seems strange that in the 5 years since the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 has been in place the Prime Minister has not designated one entity as coming within this regulation. In our view the fact that Australia has designated 88 entities Canada over 50 entities and New Zealand none causes some concern and worry. My colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee certainly will want to look quite closely at what lies behind the failure of New Zealand to date to designate any entity under Resolution 1373—whether we have in place the conditions or qualifications to ensure that that is done and whether they are rigorous enough. As I say it seems very weird—quite bizarre actually—that our neighbour Australia has seen fit to designate so many entities and we have not seen it necessary to designate any. 
I take on board the comments made by other speakers about the balance that must be struck so that we are not impinging unduly on the rights of New Zealand citizens. But of course this measure will not necessarily apply to just New Zealand citizens; our country’s population is made up of not only New Zealand citizens but also others who are here on temporary visas residence permits and so on. So although there is certainly a balance to be struck in terms of our not targeting entities or people just because we do not like the look of them or have mere suspicions about them it is the case that we must take seriously our responsibility to ensure that we play our part in the war on terror. 
I took part briefly as a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee in the review from 2005 to 2006. It is I think somewhat of a disappointment that it has taken 5 years for the review to proceed and the bill to reach the House. I support the Hon Peter Dunne’s plea that this bill be given priority; otherwise we do not look serious about our responsibility in respect of terrorism threats. We do not look serious if we do not give this bill priority. Given that the Government has such a light Order Paper—a very light Order Paper—and it has been so for some time now it is a bit of a mystery as to why the bill has taken as long as this to come up the Order Paper. But it is here and it will be referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. 
I know that my National colleagues on the committee and I have no doubt the Government members of the committee as well will give this bill due consideration. I do not know whether the referral will have a time limit. I think there should be one. Nonetheless I urge the members of the committee to give this bill the highest priority in order to show the United Nations that we are serious about our obligations under Resolution 1267 and to give the Prime Minister an opportunity to knuckle down and make sure that we are not being slack in not designating any entities and that we are playing our role in the war against terrorism—not only for ourselves but as a good neighbour to the Pacific countries Asia and Australia.