Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21643] 
Tuesday 14 June 2005 
( 
continued on Friday 17 June 2005 
) 
Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 2 Extension of existing designations and consequential amendments ( 
continued 
)  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I was speaking about the question of the extension under this bill of the designations that were made shortly after the original Act was passed in 2002. The initial designations were basically from the United Nations on Taliban and al-Qaeda entities. Under this bill they would be rolled out for another couple of years. There are two criticisms of that and they were made quite strongly by the Human Rights Commission in its submission to the select committee. 
The commission wondered why the Government knowing that those designations were expiring—and there was a renewal process involving the courts—had not made the applications to the High Court to begin the process of renewing those designations. That could easily have been done. The Government should not at this point particularly with the review of the whole Terrorism Suppression Act in Parliament push out the designations. It is not a good process. 
A lot of the discussion today has been to say that the High Court could not do this it would be too much work the High Court could not do anything else. In fact the High Court could work out how to do it and what staff it would retain to do the checking. But there is a provision in the original Act that the evidence from the United Nations be deemed as sufficient if there is no other countervailing evidence. So it would be a matter of going through and checking whether any countervailing evidence is available. In several cases there would be. It is just as easy for a court to carry out that process with the proper advice as for politicians to do it with the proper advice. 
A number of other countries have addressed this issue. Sweden addressed it because certain of its citizens who are of Somali origin were put on the US list. Sweden asked the US for information on these citizens. All it got was a set of press clippings—a bit like the Security Intelligence Service and Ahmed Zaoui. When the Refugee Status Appeals Authority wanted information from the Security Intelligence Service on him all it got was a bunch of press clippings. Those Somalis had suffered because there were problems with their assets being seized by the European Union and all kinds of things based on this false information. 
One of the problems with the UN designation system is that it is based on information provided by Governments. There is no proper checking there is no notification of the personal entity designated there is no procedure for them to challenge that designation and in the case of those Swedish people of Somali origin there was no way forward for them other than through the Swedish Government because only States can take a case to the Counter-terrorism Committee. So unless the State backs them up and Sweden did in this case they are left out on a limb. 
I think we know the way the United States operates on these questions and I refer to all the people rotting at Guantanamo Bay without due process. The United States Government operates a very loose process when determining who is or who is not a terrorist or a terrorist entity. There are a lot of errors in the system. The first Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill which was originally part of another bill—we are dealing with the No 2 bill today—was designed to allow the Government to take off entities that had been designated and I think one or two have been taken off. 
We do not need to make up for the weakness of the Government in not putting forward to the High Court a designation process for the 318 or thereabouts designations that took place 3 years ago and will expire on this October. I think the whole question of due process lies at the bottom of all this and it has been commented on. Very good comments have been made by leading justices in the House of Lords and by Kofi Annan himself. They make the point all through that if we undermine civil liberties in the name of the fight against terrorism we actually only create more terrorists. 
I believe that there is agreement among everyone in this House to do the most to fight terrorism in all its forms. We should do it in a way that respects due process because otherwise we get into this horrible situation of creating more terrorists. Of course unfortunately because of the US invasion and all the mayhem that has followed Iraq today is a seedbed for more terrorists. When some of those people go back to other countries we will have an even greater danger. Doing things in a way that does not violate conventions be they conventions on human rights or conventions against invading other countries actually undermines the terrorists. Terrorists survive only by being able to draw a certain amount of support among people—support that enables them to carry out their horrific acts against people. 
Just to elaborate further on the Swedish case that I referred to I point out that the Swedish Government filed an unsuccessful request with the 1267 Committee of the United Nations to have these people removed from the UN list. It was only after prolonged efforts with the United States that the United States joined Sweden in requesting the delisting of two of the three individuals and they were taken off the list. There is one Somali still on that list because the United States would not cooperate. So we are in bit of a mess. The Human Rights Commission indicated that we have to listen to all the critiques. Kofi Annan’s high-level panel that he set up a year or two ago headed by Australian Gareth Evans came out with very strong criticisms of the UN designation process too. So we should not treat this designation process as sacrosanct. We cannot just postpone all the designations and everything will be sweet. We have to look at due process if we are to truly combat the terrorist threat. 
There are a whole lot of criticisms around the world of the way anti-terrorism legislation has been applied. In my second reading speech and in some of the discussion that followed there was talk about Guantanamo Bay. I think that that is a case study of the worst situation that operates. People have been rotting there for years without access to due process. Bit by bit they are being released and sent back to their home countries. Some of them have been tortured in one way or another while in Guanatanamo Bay or in other countries—at Bagram Airbase for example. 
The Human Rights Commission has recommended to the select committee that before sole reliance is placed on UN-sourced designations as designations that may be extended without substantive review ministries administering the Terrorism Suppression Act carry out an analysis of the UN procedure used to list and delist individuals and groups designated and note the strengths and shortcomings identified in those procedures particularly with the observance of political rights. The select committee it hopes will report that it is able to determine the importance of domestic High Court review of the designations. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call this morning on Part 2. I just wonder whether the Associate Minister of Justice can help me with my understanding of the legislation. As I understand Part 2 it is about providing an extension of time to a schedule of organisations that have been identified as terrorist organisations. If the Minister can confirm that for me I would be grateful. I then would like him to explain to me how organisations are recognised and placed on that schedule. That is the second question I would certainly be grateful for his help with. I see he is busily digging out the original Act which will be helpful. 
 But the third and most vital point is that Part 2 extends as I understand it the principal Act’s original expiry date for the list. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Quite right. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Minister in the chair Rick Barker will then be well aware that in the original legislation the House determined that the list once developed would expire. I assume it takes considerable time to develop a list of terrorist organisations. I would hate to think that organisations doing good work around the world perhaps for humanitarian causes are inadvertently or incorrectly placed on this list. But the surprising thing to me—and I would certainly appreciate the Minister’s help on this—is that the list having been developed the original legislation has an expiry date so that at the end of 3 years suddenly that list effectively just evaporates. It seems to me a nonsense that an organisation like al-Qaeda could be placed on a schedule as a recognised terrorist organisation—and there can be no doubt— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: They turn good. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I think it will be a long long time before Osama bin Laden turns good. Keith Locke may well believe that and he is welcome to explain why he thinks Osama bin Laden might turn good. But the important thing for the Minister to explain is why the Government ever developed the notion that the original list would suddenly reach an expiry date. I would certainly appreciate the Hon Rick Barker seeking a bit of advice rising to his feet and answering that. 
The final point I want clarification on is why we are extending the date in this amendment bill that is now being rushed through under urgency to cover up the original mistake made by the Labour Government for a further 2 years only. I know that member will not be in Government or in Parliament then but why will we on the expiry date in the amendment legislation we are passing today have to look at passing another bill? These organisations are placed on the list after due diligence and a lot of hard work and we will suddenly find that they reach an expiry date after which the list effectively evaporates. It just seems to me— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Ask your colleague next to you. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I have certainly taken the opportunity of asking my colleague next to me the Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith and there would be no doubt in my mind having listened to his contributions and the odd contribution from the likes of the Hon Steve Maharey last night that Lockwood Smith knows more about this legislation than anyone else in the Chamber. There would be no doubt about that. But I fail to see how the Minister can suggest that it is his responsibility to sit there not be prepared to answer questions throughout the Committee stage and expect that those questions should be satisfactorily answered by an Opposition member Lockwood Smith. If the Minister is acknowledging that he does not really understand— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: If the member had listened to Lockwood Smith’s speech he would have got the answers. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Minister says I should have listened to Lockwood Smith’s speech. I was not here in time to hear it but if the Minister is really suggesting that he and Lockwood Smith should change position maybe that is the most satisfactory solution. Well that will happen shortly. But if the Minister intends to answer in that way the questions that I have legitimately raised—the Minister has acknowledged that; he says they are good questions— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Very clear. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Even the Minister can understand them so they must be particularly well espoused by myself. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Clause 22 answers your question. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: There is no clause 22 in Part 2. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: It’s in the principal Act. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: He is now suggesting we go back to the principal Act. Well the Minister should really explain that himself. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I would appreciate the Minister in the chair Rick Barker giving the Committee a little guidance on where things are at currently with the designations. Although Part 2 of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) extends existing designations I would appreciate from the Minister a bit of an update as to where things are at. When the principal Act was passed as I recollect there were 318 designated terrorist organisations. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Still are. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: My advice is that New Zealand now has 420. As I also understand it the United Nations now has 433. This is quite important because if there are 433 organisations considered by the United Nations to be terrorist organisations—I know Keith Locke may not consider them to be but if the United Nations thinks they are then that is quite important—at what stage will New Zealand’s list be updated? We are extending the existing list for 2 years but I would appreciate advice on whether our list has been updated yet to pick up the full 433 designated terrorist organisations that I understand are on the United Nations list. 
I realise that some organisations come off and others go on and that is a continuous process but I think it is quite important while we are looking at this issue of extension that we give a little bit of thought to how we make sure we are right up to date with which organisations are terrorist. I realise we have a little bit of an out in that because—and I am not sure that members realised this when we were debating Part 1—in fact funding terrorist organisations is illegal whether or not they are designated. I do not know whether a lot of members picked up that fact when we were debating clause 4— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: That would account for why the Greens are so concerned about it. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: The Hon Richard Prebble says that in jest but there have been members of the Green Party who have done some pretty crazy and outrageous things around New Zealand. Their actions may or may not have threatened life or limb but they have certainly been terrorist in their intent in terms of the damage they have sought to do to other interests around New Zealand. 
But that is an important issue. I think the Committee should understand that terrorist organisations do not have to be designated for it to be illegal for people to finance them. Part 2 extends the list of designated organisations and I would appreciate the Minister’s advice on where we are at at the moment with our designation work. What are we extending in terms of our numbers? I think the Minister would agree with me that it is not the 318 organisations that were originally designated that we are now extending. I would think it is the 420 that are on the list but I would appreciate the Minister’s guidance. If the United Nations has a further 13 organisations on its list and we bring them on to our list will they be automatically taken through to the full extended time of the designations that we are extending now? I am happy to take my seat if the Minister could clarify those points for us. I would appreciate that. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 It is with some sense of anxiety that I stand to take a call on this bill which I had not heard of until about 11.30 p.m. last night when I happened to tune into the radio and heard a contribution from the Green member Keith Locke. It sounded quite reasonable and quite considered and was certainly backed up with quite a bit of information but then I started listening to what he was actually saying. I was reminded of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center that took place in America and I asked myself what Keith Locke’s position at that time was. I was very careful to listen to some of the detail in some of the contributions that came afterwards and I was reminded very clearly that at that point in time he gave no unequivocal condemnation of that event. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I say to the member who is interjecting with whom I have travelled overseas to places where this kind of tyranny takes place that he cannot have it both ways. There may be some concerns about the way the United Nations establishes its list and there may be some concerns about how countries like the United States impose their view as it were but at the end of the day he has to decide which camp he is in. He cannot have it both ways. At the moment we are here in the Chamber debating legislation that will shore up the list of organisations around the world that New Zealand recognises as having been terrorist in the past or may potentially be terrorist. Maybe we will get one or two of them wrong. Maybe a mistake will be made. Maybe the Minister or the Government will make a mistake—it is quite likely with this Government. But at the end of the day we have to decide where we stand. 
If one thing is absolutely clear to me in this debate it is that the Green Party is not actually green at all. That member in particular is not green at all. The Greens are very very red. They are hard red. They are not green on the outside and red on the inside. On these issues they are as red as anti-American and as anti-development as can be. That is exactly the kind of stuff that caused the problems that led to the major conflicts we have seen around the world. 
Keith Locke 
: What about the American Green Party? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I say to the member who is interjecting—and I am sure he has hoards of information that he will give to the Committee during this debate about the rationale around why the current Government in New Zealand is committing some kind of heinous crime against some poor unheard-of organisation in some dark corner of the world—that we have to make a call on some of these things. Occasionally we will not get it right. I suspect that with the member’s proposition we would end up in a situation whereby we would get it wrong far more often than under what is currently proposed to do. 
I ask the Associate Minister of Justice when he takes a call to answer some of the questions from my colleague the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith who has studied this legislation and knows the detail of it to spell out whether it were possible in the future going forward under—God forbid—a future Labour Government that he would end up doing a deal with those people. I think the public of New Zealand deserve an answer to that. As we move into the next election we are looking at who is on the political landscape. I say to anybody who might be listening that one thing that is absolutely clear in this Parliament is that the Green Party is not green. It is hard red. It is as far red as it can get. I suggest that those listening should take a lot of notice of what Mr Locke was saying and go and study the detail. I do not like the sound of it at all—not one iota. 
I also say to the Minister that if the 420 organisations that he has identified are registered on the list and if the United Nations is more or less in agreeance with it why is Part 2 revisiting the process by which that list is established? That is something I clearly have no understanding of at all. There could be a simple explanation for it. Why are we revisiting that at this point in time? 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 12; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 39 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 4; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) the words “2 years” and substitute the words “1 year”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 Obviously clauses 1 and 2 relate simply to the title of the bill and to the commencement date which would be immediately after the legislation receives the royal assent. That is important because of the designations we have just been discussing which expire in October this year. It is really important that this legislation comes into force prior to that because otherwise we will have no list of designated terrorist organisations in New Zealand and we certainly would not be consistent with our obligations to the United Nations under Resolution 1373 were that to be the case. 
I would like the Minister to give us more guidance on the issue of the designation of terrorist organisations that I was asking him about a moment ago. It is quite important because why do we have this provision in the legislation if we do not take it seriously and do not make sure that our designations are up to date and consistent with the thinking of like-minded countries around the world? That does not mean to say we all have to designate the same organisations because obviously as a sovereign nation we have our own view on those matters and that is absolutely right and proper. 
But I pointed out to the Minister and I think it was news to him that in fact 420 organisations are now on our list of designations the number having originally been 318. When the principal Act was passed we had 318 designations and that was the United Nations list. The United Nations updated that to 420 and New Zealand did likewise. I understand—and I certainly stand to be corrected by the Minister if I am wrong on this—that we increased our number of designations by almost 100 to have 420 organisations on our list. Members may or may not realise that the Prime Minister has the power under the principal Act to add designations to the list. It is important that that power is taken seriously. It is important that we monitor the emergence of new organisations around the world and update our list. There is a matter that the Minister did not give us guidance on. I pointed out that I understood—the last I heard—the United Nations had 433 organisations on its list. So my first question to the Minister was whether we have updated our list to cover the full 433 organisations on the United Nations list. 
The next thing is that under the principal Act countries like New Zealand are at liberty to add further organisations to the list. We do not simply have to comply with the UN list of designated terrorist organisations. We can say that we in this part of the world are very concerned about such and such an organisation and if we have good cause it can be added to the list. There is a process that can be gone through: there can be an interim designation and then a final designation. In fact some countries around the world do that. My understanding is that the European Union has more organisations designated on its list than the United Nations has. The European Union is a group of countries with sophisticated institutions. Therefore if the European Union has designated organisations that we in New Zealand have not it invites questions about whether we have looked at the additional organisations that the European Union has designated and if so why we have not incorporated them into the list that we are now extending the duration of in Part 2 of the bill. Have we looked at the additional organisations listed by the European Union? Have we looked at the additional organisations listed by the United Nations? When do we plan to update our list? 
I also asked before whether if we were to update our list those designations would go beyond the 2 years of the extension provided for in this bill or whether they would go for the full 3 years stated in the principal Act. I guess this amendment will supersede the principal Act and I imagine that any new designations that are added would terminate after the 2 years’ extension that this bill is applying. 
There are some issues here that would be of interest to people in New Zealand who are genuinely concerned about our security. There is a question as to whether our list of designated organisations is up to date. I think we should be advised of the answer to that. There are issues about whether we should stick to the UN list or whether we should go beyond that. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I wish to speak very briefly in place of my colleague Dail Jones who is unable to be here today to affirm New Zealand First’s support again for this bill in its present form and to note how important it is to this party to make such provisions as the bill makes overall. We have shown particular interest over several years in people who come and go from this country as the House knows and this matter of international and national security is important. 
I have been listening with some interest to the matters discussed in this debate. I have heard the word “red” being used in this House. That takes me back almost 40 years to Professor Robert Chapman in political studies—and the term was becoming outmoded then. I have found it rather strange to hear last night and this morning the term “red” which pertains to a previous world. It is particularly strange when the Prime Minister has just come back from China and when our primary produce sector is dependent on wool and other exports to Russia the former USSR to hear in this House a viewpoint almost frozen in time on what “red” means. 
Certainly this party is in 2005. We are looking at the dangers that exist and that were demonstrated so dramatically by the events of 2001. New Zealand First is looking forward to the passing of a bill that in its amended form ought to give us greater security protection at the border in years to come. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I think the last comments by the previous speaker are valid. There has been too much name-calling in this Committee in the discussion on this bill. It does not help when people say as members have said about the Greens and about me in particular that we support terrorists. None of us in this Committee support terrorists. Whenever any terrorist outrage has occurred the Green Party has been at the forefront of condemning it from September 11 onwards as every member knows. The question is how best to fight terrorism and how not to breach human rights in the process. The question is how a country is to move from a situation where there has been a civil war in which terrorist activities have been conducted on both sides such as in the Sri Lankan civil war—in which there has been a ceasefire since late 2001 which is very good—to a real peaceful long-term settlement. The United States designation of the Tamil Tigers as a terrorist organisation has hindered that process. A donors’ meeting held in New York attended by representatives from countries all around the world to give donations for reconstruction during the ceasefire to both the Tamil Tiger side and the Sri Lankan Government side was held up because under the designation the United States would not let a Tamil Tiger representative attend. 
That is the practical consequence of that sort of provision and that is why it is wrong to move from the situation under the existing Act where one is prohibited from funding terrorist acts to a situation where one is prohibited from giving money that one knows will benefit a terrorist entity that carries out or has carried out terrorist acts. That applies quite directly to groups like the Tamil Tigers given the background of the United States designation and the way it is half-treated as correct in New Zealand by some Government agencies because of the way the amending clause in the bill is expressed. The report back from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on the bill states: “However we are now satisfied that neither the intent nor the wording of the provision catches the funding of legitimate human rights humanitarian or democratic groups acting solely in this way.” The word “solely” was put in specifically to cover groups like the Tamil Tigers which in the past has conducted some terrorist activities or the African National Congress which did conduct terrorist activities or people like Xanana Gusmao whom we now hold in high respect but whose organisation did carry out terrorist activities that affected civilians. 
Rightly or wrongly when we are dealing with movements that reflect a nationality like the Tamil Tigers—and I am critical of the lack of democracy promoted by the Tamil Tigers—how can we move forward as Norway and many other countries are trying to move forward the situation in Sri Lanka if we try to stop and criminalise anyone who is part of that process? That includes aid organisations like Oxfam and Unicef which I saw in the Tamil areas of Sri Lanka when I visited helping to build different social structures—maybe including the police force and the court system of the de facto Government. Overseas agencies that we widely respect were helping to move the process forward towards the establishment of a democratic Sri Lanka where everyone can live together. This bill is specifically geared to stop that sort of thing from happening. That is the reality. It will not just stop people from funnelling funds through front organisations for al-Qaeda. 
Of course when we are talking about al-Qaeda the issue is quite easy because nobody here gives the slightest bit of support to al-Qaeda. Everyone wants that organisation to be destroyed. Everyone wants the maximum police action taken against that organisation and against any real front organisation for it—we all agree on that. But if we go the other way and forgo human rights in prosecuting campaigns against terrorism we actually work in the terrorists’ favour. As Lord Hoffman said in the House of Lords: “The real threat to the life of the nation in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these.”—laws that breach human rights—“That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory.” Do we want to give the terrorists such a victory today by bringing in laws that will inhibit us in helping places like Sri Lanka or parts of Indonesia to move towards social justice and a peaceful resolution of conflict? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call to answer some of the questions raised. Firstly David Carter asked how organisations get on the list. They are designated to be put on the list by the Prime Minister as stated in clause 22 of the principal Act. Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith was correct in identifying that 318 organisations were on the schedule at the beginning. That list has been updated and the number for New Zealand currently stands at 420. As he correctly identified extra organisations have been designated by the UN. Those are under active consideration by New Zealand. We do not simply accept them for what they are; we have to make our own assessment of them and that process is going on. 
Once on the list organisations stay there for 3 years. What happens after that? Lockwood Smith made mention of the review of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to look at all those issues and to come up with some suggestions about how we might improve the process. So it is the intention of the Government in the light of that review the committee’s experience and our experience to come back with legislation that will be more enduring than what we had. That legislation was an instant reaction to a situation that had occurred. The world had to take some action and we did so. 
We want now to make sure we are compliant with UN resolutions—which we are—and that we have legislation consistent with the New Zealand framework and with our attitudes and lifestyle whilst at the same time ensure we are compliant with UN resolutions. All those things are under consideration and I am sure that the New Zealand Parliament will pass legislation on this matter again and that it will be very sensible legislation. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the debate on the first clause of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) and to say that members have to realise—and I think most members do—that the world faces a difficult situation in deciding how to combat terrorism and what action should be taken. What the world has decided—and I use the word “world”—is that one measure is to designate terrorist organisations. The United Nations an organisation of which I am often very critical has designated a number of organisations as being terrorist. 
We then had the matter raised by the Green MP that it is most important in fighting terrorism that we do not give up our human rights. That is an argument towards which the ACT party in particular is extremely sympathetic. But then I look at the bill to see whether there is any substance to that argument and I find it extraordinary that Mr Locke cannot actually produce that substance. Instead he told us about what the United States has done in Guantanamo Bay and what Britain has done. 
We all know that British laws are much much tougher than this legislation. Britain has had problems with the IRA for the last 30 years. They have people letting off bombs in the Tower of London. There is a power in British law whereby people can actually be held without charge. [ 
Interruption 
] Now the member is interjecting on me. I just point out to him that he is wrong in using those examples to then tell the public that that is what this Parliament is doing in this bill. 
When we look at the bill we find that there is a provision in clause 4 that deals with people who knowingly—“wilfully”—give money to a terrorist organisation that they know is carrying out acts of terrorism. According to Mr Locke that is a violation of human rights. What human right? There is no human right of being able to give money to other people to kill people. In fact there are no human rights unless we have a system of order. So Mr Locke is completely wrong on the first point he raised. 
His next point was about the listing of terrorist organisations which raises an interesting discussion as to whether that is a matter for the administration or for the courts. I say to Mr Locke that he ought to listen. Every lawyer in Parliament has said that that is not a matter for the courts. That is not what courts are set up to do. They are not equipped to do it; they do not have the staff and the like; and it is actually a matter for the administration. Those are the facts. 
Then we heard the Minister say that New Zealand does not automatically take all the United Nations’ designations of terrorist organisations and that we still look at the data before adding them to the list. But there is an idea that we should go along with listening to the Human Rights Organisation New Zealand—paid for by the New Zealand taxpayer—defend 413 terrorist organisations as no doubt it would. We have already seen the debacle that occurred with regard to Mr Zaoui. The designations are not a matter for the courts. I therefore ask Mr Locke given that he cannot put up the arguments on this bill why he is putting up that point. 
Mr Locke asks why people are questioning his motives and the reason is that we have studied him. We have seen him for the last 40 years and the only consistent position that he has had for 40 years is that he is anti-American. 
Keith Locke 
: I support the American peace movement— 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Oh he supports the American peace movement. America has 300 million people and I am sure he can find within America some people who have similar views to his own. That does not mean that he supports the United States and its institutions. He says he supports the American people but the American people actually voted for the present President. But no doubt Mr Locke would say according to his warped view of the world that that vote was rigged as well. If we look at his record in  
Hansard 
 we will see—even in this debate—that he has been unable to put together his argument without dropping into his anti-American rhetoric and that is why members say that he is not a Green but a red. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the debate on the title clause. I too have some serious concerns about some of the comments that have been made by the Green MP because in listening to some of those comments it seems to me that the member is saying that some terrorist activity is OK. The Greens are saying that if they believe in a group’s cause then it is OK if some terrorist activities have been undertaken and that that can be forgiven. So the Tamil Tigers can be forgiven if in the past— 
Keith Locke 
: When did I say that? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Just in his last speech the member said that if an organisation has taken part in some terrorist activity in the past but has gone on to good freedom fighter - style work then that is OK and that all that terrorist activity can be forgiven. I say to Mr Locke that this is my summary of his speech. This is my interpretation of his comments. I find some of those comments very very frightening. It seems to me that if the Greens believe in a cause then terrorist activity undertaken by that cause is OK. If the Greens believe that one has gone on to see the light— 
Keith Locke 
: I wish to make a personal explanation on the accusations that I have in this Parliament supported terrorist acts. It is important to explain—and it may be that the member has listened to but misinterpreted what I said—that the Green Party and I have condemned every terrorist act committed. We never justify killing and murdering civilians kidnapping hijacking or blowing up buildings like on September 11. We never do that whatsoever. The distinction that we have tried to make and that I have tried to make in Parliament today is that even though organisations like Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress or the Tamil Tigers have committed terrorist acts in the past—acts that we condemn and will continue to condemn—that does not necessarily mean we want to smash or ban the African National Congress or those who support it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I just want to remind that member that it is a personal statement. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I am none the wiser as a result of that contribution. It still seems to me that if a group has been involved in some terrorist activity in the past and that if that group goes on to rejuvenate itself and see the error of its ways then that terrorist activity is somehow overlooked and the organisation is then accepted by the Greens. 
We cannot get into a situation whereby we look at the legitimacy of each and every cause because we will all debate that and have different views—well the majority of the House will have the same view. But the Greens I am sure can go through those 420 groups on the list and start to debate whether the causes are valid or should be supported. 
 I do not think we have the luxury of doing that over a period of time so I find some of the comments that have been made by the Greens frightening and I think that New Zealanders who are listening should be concerned by some of their comments because potentially that party could form part of a new Government. When we hear that kind of thinking it should be very frightening to people. 
I am still not 100 percent comfortable with parts of this bill because I am unsure about whether it will achieve what it intends to achieve. It is very clear that if people send money to a group that they know is involved in terrorist activities that is wrong. If they send money to a group that even potentially might be involved in terrorist activity that is also wrong. However this bill says that groups have to be already carrying out or participating in terrorist activities and we know from history that some groups are set up specifically to do things in the future so then those groups will not be captured by this legislation because they are not already carrying out or participating in terrorist activity. They intend to do so in the future which is why they are raising money but technically under this bill we will capture only the groups that have already carried out one or more terrorist acts. So I am concerned that that part of the bill will not apply to groups that have been set up specifically to undertake terrorist activity in the future. 
A whole range of activities have been raised by this bill. Our side supports it and we think that it is important we do more to stamp out terrorism and to ensure that over a period of time we have a good working system that allows terrorist groups to be identified. 
I have one other concern on which the Minister might perhaps like to take a call to explain. I am unsure why the expiry of the designation is after 3 years and why it is automatic in this legislation as opposed to being part of a conscious managed process where names are taken off the list. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 4; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Ayes are? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The Ayes are 60; the Noes are 49. 
SIMON POWER 
: Yes. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The question will be put. 
SIMON POWER 
: With a majority of 60—out of 120? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is not a point of order. 
SIMON POWER 
: Well it is a fair question. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is not a fair question. It is not a point of order; the member knows that. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 100 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to and clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. This bill reflects New Zealand’s continuing commitment to respond effectively to those threats posed by terrorists. The Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 was passed largely in response to the events of September 11—events that confirmed in the most tragic way that terrorism represents a serious threat to international peace and security. Just days after that Act was passed an attack took place in Bali and there was a major terrorist attack in Madrid last year. The threat posed by terrorism has not diminished. It continues to evolve and adapt and New Zealand along with the rest of the international community must also evolve and adapt our strategies to respond to counter that threat. This amendment bill is a reflection of that ongoing process. 
The bill is necessary to update the original 2002 Act in two important respects: firstly to ensure that the designation of terrorist entities as such under the original Act does not expire as that would place New Zealand in violation of the United Nations Security Council’s resolutions; and secondly to bring our law into more complete compliance with Security Council and Financial Action Task Force requirements to criminalise those who would provide financial support to terrorist organisations. Although financing a terrorist act is already illegal not to pass this bill would mean that we would have no legal sanction against those who would support organisations related to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. This new offence will not hamper the desire of New Zealanders to contribute funds to genuine human rights or humanitarian groups. The offence targets only those who knowingly collect and provide funds to benefit terrorists. 
The necessity for such terrorist financing offences is part of the global strategy to deny terrorists access to financial support and to ensure they do not secure access to banking services in order to move funds around the globe in support of their criminal activities. To ensure there are no weak links in the international system our efforts in this regard are led by counter-terrorist financing standards set by the OECD-based Financial Action Task Force. In addition to the creation of the offence contained in this bill other Government initiatives already announced include tightening the requirements relating to international and domestic wire transfer of funds and the cross-border transfer of cash by couriers. Both of these mechanisms have potential to be used by terrorists to move money around the globe. Although there is no evidence that New Zealand is a haven for such activity it is important that effective deterrent and preventive measures are taken. 
Further anti-terrorist and anti - money-laundering measures are also under consideration. New Zealand’s largely deregulated financial system has resulted in potential loopholes in the system that require closing in order to meet the strict international requirements. Although greater regulation does impose administrative costs not taking action to meet international standards would not only risk exposure to money-laundering and terrorism but also damage New Zealand’s financial and international reputation. These are a matter of balance. Also in that respect none of the amendments in this bill adversely affects the balance achieved in the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 between the civil liberties of New Zealanders and the need to deter terrorism. 
Despite this there are other provisions of the current Act that would benefit from re-evaluation and possible amendment in the light of experience since its passage. The designation procedures are one clear area for further consideration. The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee is currently engaged in an extensive review of the Act and must report back to the House no later than 1 December 2005. The review of that Act was a requirement inserted by the committee when deliberating on the Act in 2002 after receiving extensive submissions on the measures contained in it. 
The nature of terrorism and the methods used by terrorists are ever-changing and a review is therefore both timely and welcome. I look forward to considering the committee’s report in due course. This bill is important to ensure that the Terrorism Suppression Act continues to remain effective in responding to the threat posed by terrorists. I commend this bill to the House. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I believe that in debating this bill the Committee of the whole House actually had a very good debate but I will come back to that in a moment. It is important that people understand exactly what this bill which we are reading for a third time will do. The bill will amend the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 which implemented United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373—the resolution requiring all members of the United Nations to take measures to combat global terrorism and to take measures within their own jurisdictions to combat terrorism. 
I would like to thank the team of officials who worked with the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on this legislation. It was a small but very good team. I think there were some quite complex issues and some serious considerations about the balance between security and individual human rights that had to weighed up by the committee. The officials gave us very good quality advice. I do not often say that because I have heard a lot of official advice over the years but I thought the team members advising the committee were very good. 
I mentioned a moment ago that I thought the debate in the Committee of the whole House was very good and I will explain why I believe that. I think it is important with legislation such as this which involves New Zealand’s security that there is overwhelming support for it in this Parliament. The security of our country is one of the most important things this Parliament addresses when we are handling legislation and one would like to think that the kind of legislation we pass enjoys the support of most parties when we are dealing with the issue of security. 
It was interesting that when the debate started on Part 1 New Zealand First was opposed to it and was in fact proposing to move an amendment to delete clause 4. During the debate—which I thought was a very good debate—New Zealand First changed its view and withdrew that amendment and ended up supporting clause 4. I do not criticise New Zealand First in any way for changing its view. I think that the Committee of the whole House is actually working well when that sort of thing happens. There was good debate put forward and good arguments as to why clause 4 was needed and I think New Zealand First listened to those arguments. Dail Jones the member from New Zealand First who was handling the matter on that party’s behalf listened to the arguments modified the view of his party and ended up supporting Part 1. That was very good. 
I think what really persuaded New Zealand First was the very strong argument that there was a gap in our law through the principal Act. Although section 8(1) of the principal Act makes it illegal for a person in this country knowingly to finance a terrorist act that section does not make it illegal for a person to give money to an organisation that he or she knows is involved in terrorism even though the money given may not be directly given to fund a specific terrorist act. Without new section 8(2A) inserted by clause 4 it would still be legal to give money to a terrorist organisation as long as the organisation was not directly funding a terrorist act. I think New Zealand First members were persuaded by that argument despite their concerns about the full reach of new section 8(2A) and I think that that very good debate led to the outcome of New Zealand First joining the consensus of Parliament where all other parties except one supported that important amendment to ensure that our security legislation was as watertight as possible. 
The one party that remained outside that consensus was the Green Party. I want to address my comments over the next few moments to Mr Locke who led the Green Party arguments. I do not want to make my comments personal but I want to address the logic of what he put to this House. Mr Locke even took the trouble of seeking the leave of the House to make a personal explanation about his and his party’s opposition to terrorism. I accept what he put to Parliament—as we must—that he Keith Locke personally opposes terrorism; he does not support terrorism. I accept that and in making the personal explanation to the House he argued of course that everyone abhorred al-Qaeda and everything al-Qaeda did and stood for and that of course it should be illegal to support al-Qaeda. The member is nodding his head. 
But I say to Mr Locke that the problem is that our current legislation does not make it illegal to give money to al-Qaeda. Currently without that amendment people would have to know they were giving money to a specific terrorist act of al-Qaeda. That is why the amendment is required. It seems to have escaped the Green Party that the reason for making that amendment in Part 1—by which clause 4 inserts new section 8(2A)—is to make it illegal to finance an organisation involved in terrorist acts. 
Clearly if a person finances al-Qaeda once that new section 8(2A) goes through that will be a criminal activity here in New Zealand but without that amendment it is not clear that it would be a criminal activity. Existing section 8(1) requires that for it to be a criminal act to finance something a person has to give “funds intending that they be used or knowing that they are to be used … in order to carry out 1 or more acts of a kind that if they were carried out would be 1 or more terrorist acts.” The section links the financing very tightly to the carrying out of one or more terrorist acts and that is the problem with the existing law. 
I accept the arguments of people like the Hon Richard Prebble and my colleagues in National who have said that the behaviour of Mr Locke and the Green Party in this Parliament is anything but the behaviour of people who genuinely care about New Zealand’s wider environment including our security environment. In fact their behaviour is bizarre and many have branded it red because it is so extreme-left. 
 Be that as it may I call on Keith Locke to reconsider because it would be great if this Parliament could actually reach a consensus on this important anti-terrorism legislation that is important for our security and international obligations. I call on Mr Locke to think about the issue again because under existing law it is not clear that giving money to al-Qaeda is criminal. It should be because as Mr Locke himself has pointed out al-Qaeda is an objectionable organisation. 
In my last moments let me cover just one thing in respect of the Act as it will be amended after we complete this third reading—that is there are some real inconsistencies in it. Both existing section 8(1) which relates to the financing of terrorist acts and section 10(1) which is about the prohibition on making property and services available to terrorist or associated entities have for the avoidance of doubt what I call loosely out clauses. But new section 8(2A) concerning the financing of terrorist organisations will not have that same out clause. 
Clearly in our law it is not good—to put it mildly—to have a part of the Act where there is an out clause for financing terrorist acts and for making property and services available to terrorist organisations but no out clause for just funding a terrorist organisation. All offences are equally unacceptable and should be equally criminal and I hope that the select committee as it completes its review of the principal Act the Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002 will actually remove those avoidance of doubt clauses because I suspect that it would be extraordinarily difficult to achieve a successful prosecution while such sections remained in the principal Act. 
National totally supports this amendment bill. We believe there has been a good quality debate and I think it would be great if the House could reach full consensus on the legislation. If Mr Locke could finally accept that the funding of al-Qaeda should be criminal in this country that would be great too. 
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Kia ora talofa lava and warm Pacific greetings. I stand proudly not only as a member of this Labour-led Government but also as deputy chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to support the third reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2). 
While I am on my feet I would like to express my appreciation to the Hon Phil Goff the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and also more important to his chief legal adviser and to officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Ministry of Justice and to the 13 submitters who took the time to participate with their submissions. I also want to thank the Hon Peter Dunne the chairperson of our Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and all my parliamentary colleagues including Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith and the Green member Keith Locke. Our select committee worked hard to address the complexity of these issues. I also thank others who have participated in the final stages of this debate and who support this very important legislation. 
I also feel very positive that the statutory review of the Terrorism Suppression Act conducted by our select committee will provide a suitable forum for all stakeholders to engage in addressing some of the complexities and issues like those that Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith has raised. That report is due back at the end of the year. 
This bill needs to be seen in context not in isolation. It is an element of a range of policies and programmes that this Labour Government has strengthened and supported by including increased funding in this year’s Budget for overseas development aid fairer and freer trade and defence and security—and we now have this legislation. All these initiatives work to address root causes of terrorism and to stop terrorism. 
The human rights theme was also evident throughout the deliberations of the select committee. I want to quote the link between human rights and the bill because it is an important one. The world’s human rights institutions’ joint statement declared in Seoul in 2004 stated: “Terrorism has a devastating impact on the full range of human rights most directly the right to life and personal security.” Our own Chief Human Rights Commissioner affirms that the role of the State is to protect its citizens and all of those within its borders from such violence. This is why we need the legal framework in place to further support terrorism suppression and why the passing of this terrorism amendment bill is another way to stamp out terrorism so as to protect our citizens and the citizens of the world. 
In summary at the time the original bill was first introduced there was uncertainty as to the nature and extent of the terrorism phenomenon. An assumption that some designations might be short-lived has since proved to be false and New Zealand now has over 420 designated terrorist organisations all on the United Nations security list and is considering adding more groups to that list. The bill also proposes extending two sections of the Act that prohibit the financing of terrorism acts and of designated terrorist entities so that they also cover the intentional financing of non-designated terrorist organisations. Given the fluidity of terrorist movements and the unpredictable emergence of new terrorist groups this change is the most practical way of ensuring that New Zealand will always remain compliant with international obligations prohibiting the funding of terrorist organisations. 
New Zealand although small has a critical role to play as a leader in the Pacific region and as a participant in the Asian region and must always be vigilant act consistent with its principles and remain pragmatic and compliant with international obligations prohibiting the funding of terrorist organisations and of all of those who fund and support their actions. The Terrorism Suppression Act has strengthened New Zealand’s ability to combat terrorism. Terrorism has become the greatest threat to the world’s peace prosperity and security. Our collaborative and concerted local national regional and international effort is needed on all fronts including addressing the root causes of terrorism. United we stand; divided we fall. The effective targeting of terrorist financing is a measure that can have potentially significant impact on the ability of terrorists to operate. In plain language we can identify or imagine what life must be like for them without money or an economic base. In passing this bill New Zealand continues to demonstrate its ongoing commitment to stop terrorism in all its forms in our global world. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First to again add our support for the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) which amends some sections of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002. I also rise because my colleague Dail Jones is unable to be here today. Therefore I begin by going back to the report of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and to the matters that were raised in the Chamber last night concerning the change indicated in my colleague’s proposed amendment because those matters are still valid and important. 
In submissions made on the bill one of the major issues for those submitters and the committee must have been that in the catch-all legislation that this bill is about to embody the funding of legitimate humanitarian or human rights activities should not be impaired. Last night Mr Jones took some time to very ably indicate his and our caucus’s view on those matters. We were reassured by the Minister who said in his second reading speech which he later reaffirmed for the Committee that the intent and the wording was not to catch such funding and that humanitarian or democratic rights groups acting solely in humanitarian ways were not intended to be subject to that clause. So last night New Zealand First withdrew its suggested amendment. 
When the leader of United Future and chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee the Hon Peter Dunne spoke on these matters in regard to the actual matter that Dail Jones was concerned about namely clause 4 which inserts proposed section 8(2A) I was somewhat confused by Mr Dunne carefully going through the suggested new section and saying that test by test the threshold was so high. I also had in mind that earlier the Hon Richard Prebble had talked about this show clause. When one really looks at the actual law in practice I think that Peter Dunne had it right. This threshold may be so high and may seem to be so inclusive but in fact the series of tests that must be met will result in no activity at all in actual practice in regard to this clause. 
Contrary to what Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith has said section 8(2A) in clause 4 and section 8(1) of the principal Act are in reality not so far apart. Notwithstanding the language the officials have carefully put together by trying to be all things and setting so many tests in legal practice this may not work as the committee intended. I am not signalling that my colleague was wrong in regard to this clause. I am saying to members that this particular section may yet prove to need further amendment if it is to achieve the intention of the committee. That may yet prove to be the case. 
On behalf of New Zealand First I say that we broadly support the intentions of this bill because we all know that since September 11 of 2001 there has been a change not just to the Americans but also to our world. We received an understanding that into our sphere of influence—and we all realise how close the issues of Indonesia have been in recent times—came a sophisticated selectively targeted type of terrorism that some countries unfortunately had known for many years which knew no favourites and had no agendas other than exactly as we saw in regard to the events of that day. The territorial boundaries were no longer there in regard to that world and our world. 
New Zealand First has been very very concerned over several years about the border and entry of people to this country and has seen particularly in recent months that the Government has been unable to say with any great assurance that its immigration policy is able to identify each and every immigrant in the defined way that it ought; New Zealand First and the Rt Hon Winston Peters have exposed the inability of the Government to say that person A is that person has that history and has that record. In the sort of environment that we have today this bill is very much needed. 
Therefore we support the bill. We support the need to look further at those designations and contrary to what the member from the Greens has said the matters that are before us are matters of law. What may happen to another country is of no concern to me or to New Zealand First. We take the United Nations designations in regard to who should be a group. But the real matter of this bill is what pertains to New Zealand’s legal system and to our law. All the examples that I have heard from the Green Party are of no significance against the fact of what we think is desirable practice. 
In saying that though as a law and order party we at all times would wish that this be strictly in accordance with sound legal practice. Political judgments must in the end be judgments that can be justified in law. This bill does just that. We support its passing and we look forward to the fact that it is but one step we hope to greater security at the border and for New Zealanders. We also look forward to the final report later in the year that should give a completeness and a comprehensiveness that this short amendment bill does not give. 
Finally on behalf of New Zealand First I say that we are pleased to support this bill further earnestly hoping that the intended objectives will be achieved although I must say personally and on behalf of Dail Jones a wee bit of residual doubt remains. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party would like to say at the outset that of course all the parties in the House are united to fight terrorism in the most effective way and we should have appropriate laws for that. We are utterly against all forms of terrorism be it non-State terrorism or State terrorism. Those listening to this debate might think “Oh the Greens are on their own; they are some sort of minority off to one side.” But if one had been at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and heard the submissions one would have found that overwhelmingly the organisations that submitted—and they were respected organisations: various civil liberties groups such as the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties the Canterbury Council of Civil Liberties the Human Rights Foundation the Peace Foundation the Association of University Staff etc.—raised the same criticisms that the Green Party has been raising in this debate. 
What we want to do is to fight terrorism most effectively. I did indicate before that if we do not fight terrorism in the most effective way and protect human rights at the same time we are in deep trouble. I will just quote Lord Hoffman because I think it is relevant and I have quoted him before. He said in the House of Lords: “The real threat to the life of the nation in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these [which breach human rights]. That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory.” 
Another quote is from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour who made the key point: “A commitment to uphold respect for human rights and rule of law will be one of the keys to success in countering terrorism not an impediment blocking our way.” Unfortunately members in this House have seen the Greens’ objection to new legislation that undermines human rights as somehow an impediment to fighting terrorists. In fact it is just the opposite if members look at that. 
Kofi Annan the UN Secretary-General has a similar concern. He puts it round the other way and I will quote from him. “Every time we advance the protection of human rights we deal a blow to the evil designs of terrorists and we remove a sense of injustice which can cause the oppressed to channel their frustration into illegitimate violence. If we compromise on human rights in seeking to fight terrorism we hand terrorists a victory that they cannot achieve on their own. If we build on these fundamentals I believe we can develop a new vision of global security—a vision that respects human rights while confronting the threats of our age including the threat of terrorism.” I think that is very important. 
Mr Prebble mentioned the IRA I think in his speech. When one looks at how Governments around the world confronted such problems before September 11 one finds that the IRA was part of a combined movement with Sinn Fein its political wing. But the British Government never brought in a law such as this to throw people in jail if they gave money to Sinn Fein. The reason it did not do that is it knew that the reality was that Sinn Fein despite the fact it was associated through its support of the IRA with despicable terrorism that everyone opposes totally—putting bombs in pubs and all of that which people like myself were historically the strongest in criticising—also had the support of the bulk of the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland. Its people were being elected to Parliament etc. 
So the best way to end that terrorism—and the British Government had this approach—was ultimately to get into a dialogue with Sinn Fein and convince it that progress could be made in some of its legitimate objectives rather than in its illegitimate objectives through the use of violence to better the lot of the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland or to give it a chance to advance its republican agenda which there was support for and was a political goal not a military goal and to allow it to have room in the political structures of the country to do that. That was successful. It has not been totally successful. Sure there are still remnants of the IRA around but proceeding in that way basically has brought relative peace to Northern Ireland rather than trying as in the past to criminalise people who gave money to Sinn Fein. 
The same thing applies in Sri Lanka today where there has been an effective ceasefire since November 2001. A whole lot of effort is going on involving nations around the world—and the New Zealand Government has played its role in that to its credit—to try to rebuild Sri Lanka to promote human rights and to get both sides in the earlier vicious civil war where terrorist acts were committed by both sides through dialogue through rebuilding through aid through what is called if one listens to Norwegian peace negotiators confidence-building measures to bring peace to that country. That process has been undermined by the designation of the Tamil Tigers still this year by the United States as a terrorist organisation. It just does not help. If those designations are combined with the practice of trying to smash that organisation it does not help the whole rebuilding process. 
Actually one of the submitters to the select committee David Small from Arena made a good point and he related it to development and I quote him: “It is now widely accepted by governmental agencies like New Zealand Aid that long-term development assistance is most effective when local organisations are intimately involved in every aspect of the work from its conception to its evaluation and in situations of conflict such as exist in Aceh and Sri Lanka groups that are representative of local communities are necessarily involved in the rebuilding work. However such groups may also fit within the criterion of having participated in the carrying out of a terrorist act. This bill would criminalise any group or individual who provided assistance to such a group. I’m of course not suggesting that the tsunami donor records of the development agencies would be seized and prosecutions brought. However in considering amending the law in the way the bill proposes one must seriously take into account what is made possible and not just what is likely in the current conditions.”—by which I suppose he means with a Labour Government in power today and the general atmosphere towards tsunami relief we are not expecting any prosecutions but when we write laws we are writing them for a more difficult situation. In the future we might have a Government that is pretty antagonistic to the aid community and is running some rather strange foreign policy agendas. 
One of the problems and this came out in the debate is that the report from the select committee stated that people cannot give to any organisation if it had in the past committed or had an aspect of committing terrorist activities even if—and I refer to groups like the Tamil Tigers—it is involved at the moment in constructive activity that the international community is supporting. The select committee report states that the provision does not catch those who are involved in the funding of legitimate human rights humanitarian or democratic rights groups and that these groups have to be acting “solely” in this way. The word “solely” was put in specifically to relate to the Tamil Tigers and groups like that or Sinn Fein; if there is any aspect at all of terrorism in groups’ activities then New Zealanders can be put in jail for funding them. That is where the amendment crosses the line and does not become useful in advancing peace and reconstruction. That is the problem. 
Unfortunately the Green amendments to this bill were not passed. We tried to get the existing exception—the qualifying provision that exists in the present law in terms of funding groups that are promoting democratic rights and democracy— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member’s time has expired. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak in the third reading debate on the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2). It is just as well to remind the House what the bill is actually about because it was not clear from Mr Locke’s contribution. The third reading is an amendment to the earlier Terrorism Suppression Act that was passed just after September 11. Fundamentally this bill does two things. The earlier legislation made it illegal to give money in this country to support terrorism. It was then realised that there was actually a loophole in the earlier bill—that people could claim they were not giving money to support terrorism that they were just giving it to the entity. So this bill says that that it is illegal in New Zealand—or it will be shortly when this bill is passed—to give money to a terrorist organisation. 
Mr Locke then said that means that people who gave money after the tidal wave would be caught up. Again if members look at that clause it is written so that people have to give the money wilfully they have to know that the money will go to an organisation that engages in terrorism and they have to have no reasonable excuse. I think that Mr Locke is now alone in the House in believing that that could mean that a person who gave money to a street collection could be caught up. Mr Jones on behalf of the New Zealand First Party did raise some questions about that at the Committee stage. We listened to the assurance given by the Minister which is written into the  
Hansard 
 record and which the court will take notice of in the event of any prosecution. All the lawyers in the House say that this law is so written that the requirement of intent is so high that in fact the only people who will be caught will be those who openly say: “I’m collecting money for a terrorist organisation in order to strengthen their ability to bomb the hell out of whomever they are against.” That is about as strong as it would have to be for that one to get home. 
Then there is a second section where the United Nations has designated a number of organisations as terrorist organisations. That section which is now in our law will lapse if this bill is not passed. It was probably contrary to our intentions when we go back to 2002—I have looked back at the  
Hansard 
 lists and no one not even Mr Locke thought that the United Nations would actually have designated 430 is it? 
Hon Member 
: 410. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It has probably gone up a couple more since we started this debate but there are now 410 such organisations. The idea that we would take each one to the High Court would be a huge waste of taxpayers’ money amongst other things. We know from the Zaoui case just how long those sorts of cases might take. 
 So we have a practical question before us. The whole House including New Zealand First now says that we should do this except Mr Locke from the Green Party. It is interesting. I have gone back and looked at  
Hansard 
 and Mr Locke is consistent. He gets up on bill after bill and says that the Green Party is opposed to terrorism and he says that the Greens have opposed it every time it has happened. I have no doubt that he has probably put out press statements after various bombings have occurred. The question is what actions have the Green Party taken in order to protect New Zealand? That is a legitimate question because the No. 1 responsibility of this House of Representatives is the security of the nation and its citizens. It is not our No. 2 or No. 3 responsibility it is our No. 1 responsibility—but not according to the Green Party. 
According to the Green Party it is far more important that we give human rights to those 410 terrorist organisations. I ask the member why. Surely the No. 1 responsibility is the security of New Zealanders. Secondly the proposal he is putting forward as he has been told by officials and by experienced members of this House—in fact I think he himself knows—is completely unworkable. If we were to follow the Greens’ prescription it would not be illegal to raise money in this country for terrorist organisations. We know that if it was not illegal there are a number of misguided individuals—fortunately a very small number—who would do that. New Zealand would become known to be a home for terrorism and that would be as a result of following the Green Party policy. 
Does it matter? Unfortunately it does. We are an MMP Parliament. Obviously the polls might change but it is clearly the objective of Mr Locke’s party to no longer be a critic of the Government but according to Mr Donald to be part of the Government. That is why I think the most significant thing that has come out of this debate is a question for New Zealanders as to whether they want the Green Party to be in charge of our security. I make this statement: if the Green Party becomes part of the Government that is a threat to the security of New Zealand. I do not trust Mr Locke with the information. I do not trust the Green Party. I do not think that the Green members of Parliament should serve on the security committees that look at confidential information that is given to us by our allies. Indeed I think that if the Green Party starts to have Cabinet Ministers we will find that will have an effect on our best protection against terrorism. It has been said by successive Prime Ministers including the present one that our best protection against terrorism is the fact that we have international agreements that enable people to share intelligence. 
I listened to Mr Locke today and he made it clear that he does not trust those organisations. In the speech that he made today his principal arguments against the bill were not what New Zealand would do but what the United States and Britain have done. They are the two nations that supply us with information and they are aware of this House. They are aware of Mr Locke’s  
Hansard 
. No doubt they have a file on him. I have been aware of him since I first ran into him when I was a university student. Mr Locke has never grown up. He has exactly the same views now as those he had at the height of the cold war. He has not moved one inch. The rest of the world has moved on but Mr Locke has not. The only thing that is different about him is that he used to run under a red banner and was never voted for but he then found that if he painted it green but did not change any of his views he could get elected. 
I say that this should be an issue at the next election. I am not standing but I say to anyone who is thinking of voting for the Green Party that if we look at its actual record on this crucial issue the Greens never talk about the environment. They raise matters the logic of which would be that New Zealand would be defenceless against terrorism. Mr Locke has failed in his No. 1 responsibility. His No. 1 responsibility is not to try to get votes from the people who share his paranoid view of the world it is to vote for what is in the best interests of the security of this nation. This bill is absolutely essential for that and his failure to vote for it shows that he is not fit to be part of the Government. I do not think that the Green Party deserves even to be in this House. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 We have just listened to a very fine speech from the Hon Richard Prebble on a concern that I think is widely felt in this House and for those who are listening widely felt outside it. We have a party—the Green Party—that through its representative is opposed to the provisions of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2). It is opposed to the creation of an offence that has for its purpose compliance with international standards for counter-terrorist financing and to the creation in specific terms of an offence in connection with funding terrorist groups. 
Whether it takes the form of bombings hijackings shootings or assassinations terrorism is neither random spontaneous nor blind. It is a deliberate use of violence against civilians for political or religious ends. It seems to me that it is characterised by four key elements. Those elements are that first it is premeditated planned in advance rather than being an impulsive act of rage; second it is political not criminal like the violence that groups such as the Mafia use to get money but designed to change the existing political order; third it is aimed at civilians not at military targets or combat-ready troops; and fourth it is carried out by sub-national groups not by the army of a country. 
The word “terrorism” itself was coined during France’s Reign of Terror in 1793. Originally the leaders of that systematised attempt to weed out traitors amongst the revolutionary ranks praised terror as the best way to defend liberty but as the French Revolution soured the words soon took on grim echoes of State violence and guillotines. 
There is nothing new about terrorism of course. The oldest terrorists were holy warriors who killed civilians. One can think of the 1st century situation in Palestine where Jewish Zealots would publicly slit the throats of Romans and their collaborators. In 7th century India members of the Thug cult would ritually strangle passers-by as sacrifices to the Hindu deity Kali. In the 11th century in the Middle East the Shiite sect known as the Assassins would eat hashish before murdering civilian foes. 
The Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002 the principal Act which is the subject of amendment and present debate has had something of a chequered history. This is the second time since 2002 that the legislation has been amended. I echo the comments made by others that when National becomes the Government in September we will need to take a hard look at this legislation and deal with some of the deficiencies that have been identified. 
The Act’s original purpose was to implement the obligations for New Zealand law in connection with the bombings convention the financing convention and the anti-terrorism resolution of the United Nations. Then in 2003 the nuclear material convention and the plastic explosives convention were added to the provisions of the Act. 
There is no doubt that the legislation has shortcomings and they include the involvement of the court in the extension of the designation of terrorist entities. It is interesting to see that that responsibility is now to be imposed on the Chief High Court Judge. Most of us involved in the law have seen the role of that particular official as being concerned with the expeditious dispatch of the court’s business. In my view that official should clearly not be cast in the role of determining whether designations should enure. That is the first aspect. 
The second aspect I would identify is that I doubt whether the best way of dealing with terrorist groups is by designation in the way the legislation contemplates. Whatever the number is—I think 450 was the suggested number of groups that are currently outlawed—that seems to me to be an unworkable arrangement. 
It is also right to say that religiously motivated terrorists like al-Qaeda are less restrained than other terrorists. Earlier arch-terrorists such as Carlos the Jackal and Abu Nidal never contemplated much less attempted the complete destruction of high-rise buildings packed with people. But for those religious groups such as al-Qaeda the Arabian-backed Hezbollah the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo and the Palestinian group Hamas mass killings are considered not only acceptable but holy. 
The rise of terrorism since September 11 has of course produced new strategies and new thinking. In the context of New Zealand defence arrangements where there was for a time a passing interest in what one might call some form of niche response we have had to move on from there. We have had to move on in substantial measure because of the challenges that asymmetric warfare poses. The responses that may have been satisfactory several years ago are now not satisfactory. I think it is a matter of regret that the New Zealand Government has not yet sufficiently caught up with that change. 
So here it is—the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) which National supports is on the brink of being passed. We support that legislation for the reasons I have indicated but we see a clear need for the legislation to be reviewed both as to its content and as to the underlying strategy behind it. I join with other members of the House in expressing shock at the comments made by the Green Party in its apparent refusal to accept that terrorism is a real issue that must be confronted head-on. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 This bill is necessary to update the principal Act of 2002 in two important respects. Firstly it ensures that the designations of terrorist entities under that Act do not expire. That would have placed New Zealand in violation of the United Nations Security Council resolution. Secondly the bill brings our law into more complete compliance with the requirements of the Security Council and the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering to criminalise those who provide financial support to terrorist organisations. I support the passage of the bill. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 This bill is very important legislation and I am astounded that the Green Party member—Mr Locke—can stand in this House and say in effect that terrorists have more rights than the citizens of New Zealand. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: That’s what he was saying. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: He was. The role of Parliament and the role of the Government is first and foremost to protect New Zealand New Zealanders our properties our lives our families and all that we stand for. That is what democracy is about. That is true democracy not this woolly thinking that comes from the Green Party. I hope all New Zealanders take on board the fact that we have a party that is prepared to stand in this House and say that this bill on terrorism which we are debating today is not important. I find that absolutely astounding. I am dismayed by it and astonished by it—it is an absolute disgrace. All other parties in this House over the course of the debate have been very clear indeed about the importance of our sovereignty and our ability to be secure in our position in terms of counter-terrorism. But we see that one party in the House is actually going to move away from that provision. It will be interesting when we come to vote on the third reading to see whether the Green Party votes against it. It might abstain. We will see. It might sit on the fence. 
We are debating the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) which National is supporting. We have heard some very good arguments today and yesterday on the importance of this legislation to New Zealanders and our economy. I want to highlight the problem that we face as a country so geographically isolated that we could be a threat and we could be used as a base. That is why it is important that our security services and our military are able to cope with any eventuality—those unseen things that creep up on us. It would be naive to think that because of our location we have a defence against that and that we are protected. That is absolutely not the case because terrorism is around the world. Anyone who has travelled since 9/11 will have seen the border controls now in countries such as the United States. That is a protection that we need. It is a protection that New Zealanders expect to be in place when people arrive here. 
Our border control agencies—the Customs Service and Immigration Service—are to be commended for the work they do. Yet we have a party that is saying in the House today—and I hope New Zealanders take note—that this bill is not needed. In doing that the Green Party is probably promoting the view of human rights which it always pushes but what about the rights of New Zealanders? I would have thought that was important. I know my colleagues think our human rights are important because with rights comes responsibilities. One does not just have rights; one expects that responsibilities go with that. Yet one party in this House decides that that is not important. 
When we look at what is happening on the world scene with regard to terrorism we see that it is brutal it is violent there are no qualms about what it can do there is no respect for the laws of the land there is no respect for lives there is no respect for property and there is no respect for the international reputation of the country in which it happens. We have seen it throughout the world. Whether it takes the form of bombings shootings hijackings or assassinations we know that terrorism is neither random spontaneous nor blind. It is a deliberate use of violence against civilians for political or religious ends. If we look at wars around the world we see that they are dominated by a political sense by political intrigue and by people who believe they know best and therefore force on people civilians in particular their views which then of course backlash. 
If we look at the definition of terrorism we see there are four key elements. It is premeditated. It does not “just happen”. It is premeditated. It is planned in advance. It is not an impulsive act of rage that happens at the time. It is premeditated. It is political. It is not a criminal event but a political event—like the violence that groups such as the Mafia use to get money—designed to change the existing political order. Terrorism is based on political ideology and it is aimed at civilians because they are the most vulnerable. They are the ones who cannot react. They are the ones who are unable to stand up for themselves protect themselves or take countermeasures. Terrorism is not aimed at military targets because there would be an immediate response. It is not aimed at combat troops either. It is aimed at those who are the most vulnerable—the people who cannot defend themselves; the civilians. The fourth point in the key elements of terrorism is that it is carried out by sub-national groups. It is carried out by small groups of people who are fanatics. That is what they are. They are fanatics for a political cause. They are pushing an ideological point of view that is contrary to the view of the majority. Terrorism is not aimed at the army of a country; it is aimed right at the heart of those who are the most vulnerable and they of course are the civilians and citizens. 
So where does the word “terrorism” come from? What are the origins of this word? It was coined during France’s Reign of Terror between 1793 and 1794. Originally the leaders of this systemised attempt to weed out traitors among the revolutionary ranks praised terror as the best way to defend liberty. As was found out during the French Revolution the word soon took on the grim echoes of State violence and guillotines. That is the origin of the word “terrorism”. Is it a new phenomenon? No it is not. As my colleague Dr Worth said it has been around since the Middle Ages. I will not repeat what my learned colleague Dr Richard Worth said because he crystallised and articulated a very important facet of what terrorism means and the phenomenon that is associated with it. 
The final point I want to reiterate is that terrorism is not blind. It is a deliberate attempt by groups of fanatics to further a political cause and it is aimed at hitting those who are the most vulnerable in society those who cannot protect themselves. They are the civilians of our nations. Any Government’s primary role is to protect its citizens and its country. That is the role of a Government. This Parliament has the opportunity to put into force laws that will allow our Government and our Government agencies to do what is right. There is nothing more important in a democracy than being assured of our security and our peace of mind during difficult times. We may be geographically isolated but I can assure members that we are vulnerable. Any party that cannot support this bill is not worthy of representation in this Parliament or any Government. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to support the third reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2). The need to extend the legislation which Parliament passed in 2002 reflects the way the world now has to do business. The reality of terrorism is with us in terms of the foreign policy of many countries; even a small country like our own of 4 million people at the bottom of the Pacific has to be very focused on this issue. 
The amendment to the legislation is needed as a result of the events of September 11 which are still very firmly in the minds of members as mentioned throughout the whole debate. That terrible event caused tragedy for so many people and the effects continue today. I note that Families of September 11 an advocacy organisation in New York is working on issues arising from the fall-out of that event and the terrible suffering of those people. The new executive director Jennifer Mincin has written very good articles about the issues that confront victims of terrorism. Those things are very firmly in the minds of all parliamentarians. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am very grateful for the chance to say a few words on this bill. 
Hon David Carter 
: There won’t be many. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There could be quite a lot. We have plenty of time. I am staying in Wellington this evening so I am not worried. First of all I profoundly disagree with the comments made by my Green colleague Mr Locke and his approach on these matters. Fundamentally I think Mr Locke is quite— 
Hon David Carter 
: Your colleague? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I would refer to Mr David Carter as my parliamentary colleague. One’s “colleague” does not necessarily mean ownership in any sense. Indeed one wants to disown them in some sense. 
I think Mr Locke’s problem as on a number of matters is simply that the world has passed him by. He has not caught up with the change in reality since the 1960s. We are no longer in support of freedom-fighting guerrillas in Third World countries against awful oppression. We face quite different kinds of threats which are well organised financially sophisticated and able to route their activities even through countries such as New Zealand and that is why we have to be part of the intelligence networks and others that deal with them. 
Let me say that I am still sufficiently old-fashioned and liberal also to defend the right of Mr Locke to express those views and to differ profoundly from what Mr Tisch said. Mr Tisch said essentially that if anybody disagreed with supporting this bill he or she had no right to be within this Parliament. I just have to say gently to Mr Tisch that one of the ironies of democracy is that we do have to end up defending the right of people to say things even if they could potentially threaten democracy on occasions if they were to be taken too seriously. I think Mr Locke unwittingly signs up sometimes to views that provide some kind of threat in that respect but I have no doubt at all of his own commitment to democratic principles within our society. Much more important I have no doubt at all of our responsibility to uphold his right to express those views within this Parliament because undoubtedly there are people outside this House who are concerned about some of the measures that we now need to take in order to protect ourselves against movements that are within the international arena. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a third time.