Tisch Lindsay: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21665] 
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.