Mapp Wayne: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21623] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I guess the first thing one has to recollect is that just 2 weeks ago New Zealand SAS troops were deployed from Whenuapai to Afghanistan. Somewhat unusually firstly they were transported there courtesy of US aircraft—two C17s—and secondly the Prime Minister made the very clear statement that they would be engaged in long-range reconnaissance and direct action. As was noted in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that is in fact combat. Today’s  
network politics 
 also dealt with that issue. It noted that the troops have been deployed at this stage and in those numbers because they are part of the intensified campaign to capture Osama bin Laden or perhaps to deal to him in some other way. 
I guess that is the real point. We—the nations of like mind—are still having to struggle to deal with the reality of terrorism and with the very people who organised the attacks in September 2001. In essence that is why we are here today debating this bill. There is a reality out there and it requires very focused and demanding action by our soldiers. We should acknowledge that. 
When I hear the Green Party members and surprisingly New Zealand First members in some kind of unusual alliance saying that it is not necessary to pass legislation that deals with that I wonder whether they have taken any notice at all— 
Dail Jones 
: That’s not what I said. The member is lying again. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Madam Deputy Speaker— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Would the member please withdraw that remark. 
Dail Jones 
: I withdraw that remark. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: This legislation is crucial. I note that —unlike I might add New Zealand First—the Green Party has voted against every single security measure put forward in this Parliament. It has been oblivious to the challenge facing the world in terms of the problems of terrorism. 
I want to deal specifically with the concerns raised by both New Zealand First and the Green Party. Both parties raised a similar concern around section 8(2) of the Act. They cannot deny that reality. For some reason New Zealand First has argued that a person who innocently makes a contribution to aid the victims of the tsunami in Sri Lanka would be caught by clause 4 which inserts subsection (2A) into section 8 of the Act. 
 That is wrong. The reasons it is wrong are this. Firstly the activity itself must be made wilfully. Secondly it has to be without lawful justification or reasonable excuse. I would have thought that aiding victims of the tsunami constitutes a lawful justification or a reasonable excuse. So I believe that the basic argument put forward particularly by New Zealand First is fundamentally flawed. It is just extraordinary that New Zealand First has chosen to ally itself with the Green Party on this issue. One would have thought it would be careful not to do that given its record. 
I appreciate that we will have the opportunity later to debate the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by New Zealand First but I note that New Zealand First—and specifically Mr Dail Jones—seeks the complete deletion of that provision. It does not seek to amend it in any way. It does not seek to clarify it in order to deal with a concern; it seeks just to remove it completely. If Mr Dail Jones has a concern he ought at the very least to have put forward an amendment that addressed his concern directly rather than seeking a simple deletion. Seeking a simple deletion has the consequence that a person who donates money to an entity that he or she knows will carry out terrorist acts will not be subject to the law. That surely cannot be the intent of— 
Dail Jones 
: It’s an offence—page 1. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: No I am talking about donating to the entity. That surely cannot be the intent of New Zealand First. It probably is the intent of the Green Party but it surely cannot be the intent of New Zealand First. I believe that New Zealand First has not put sufficient thought into achieving its intention. I can appreciate its motivation but I do not believe that it has cast its position on this issue correctly. 
The second point I want to discuss was more specifically dealt with I think by Mr Locke. There is a fundamental flaw in his thinking around the role of the courts and of the executive in designating terrorist groups. As my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith indicated he warned this Parliament some 2 years ago of the problems this provision would raise unless it was renewed. As has been noted particularly by the chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee Mr Dunne that provision in hindsight has proven to be a mistake. 
In reality the Government has no choice but to take the path it has taken. The reason is this. I ask members to imagine what would happen if we took the Green approach. The Green approach would be to have the courts deal with each and every designation. Literally hundreds of entities are designated by the UN as terrorist organisations. Terrorism is like an octopus or a spider; it has numerous tentacles sub-branches and the like each of which has to be designated. It is simply not the role of the courts to examine that kind of material. The courts have not been established for that purpose. Let us get that right. Dealing with national security is always a matter for the executive and that is how it should be. The law has to reflect the reality. 
I understand that the select committee is in the process of conducting a review of the Terrorism Suppression Act. Frankly it will have to modify the legislation substantially to reduce the role of the court because the court cannot assume what is in effect an executive power. Only the executive has the full range of information necessary. Much of this is obviously confidential information gathered through the SIS and the like—information provided by friends and allies—and cannot be disclosed in court. One need only look at all the problems surrounding the Ahmed Zaoui case to see the truth of that yet that is where the Green Party would take New Zealand. It would essentially turn our Government on its head and that would ruin the effectiveness of our democracy. It would make it extremely difficult for this country’s Government—of whatever stripe—to look after the security safety and protection of New Zealanders. 
I will look with interest at the work the select committee undertakes in its review. It is important. There were undoubtedly aspects of the original legislation that needed to be improved—that has been acknowledged in the past—and a review of those aspects is necessary. It is noteworthy that the United States is undertaking some modifications to the Patriot Act to deal with issues that time enables people to deal with.