Dunne Peter: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Second Reading 
Dunne Peter: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9150] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to speak in support of the Counter-Terrorism Bill and I do so as chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee which examined the legislation. I say to the previous speaker that one of my pet bugbears in life is having to queue up to go through the metal detector at airports. I do not like it I think it is an intrusion on my freedom I find it an affront to my dignity etc. I think it is probably unnecessary but I accept that in today’s environment where international terrorism is of such a scale that we had not contemplated 2 years ago those affronts to my dignity are the small price that I have to pay unwittingly unwillingly but necessarily in this environment. I say that to that member because that is the distinction with this bill. 
I think we can have very prissy debates about where the line is drawn between individual freedoms and collective obligations and I have some sympathy in an ideal world with a number of the things he has said and has argued for at the select committee. We know now to our sad cost that if we ever did we certainly no longer live in an ideal world. It might have been easy to say of September 11 2001 that those events occurred far away that flying aircraft into the symbol of United States capitalism was probably a protest directed firmly against the United States Government and that we in New Zealand have no particular cause for concern even if we were shocked and horrified by those events and the tragedy that ensued. 
 If that was our view we certainly could not have repeated it one year ago last weekend when a much more indiscriminate bombing took place in Bali. Paddy’s Irish Bar and the Sari nightclub were hardly symbols of international capitalism or the great struggle of the Western world against Islam or any of the other symbols that people like to portray. It was random it was indiscriminate it was murderous and it was close to home. We know that because of the New Zealand citizens who lost their lives there. If September 11 was no wake-up call surely Bali was. 
An event like that might not occur in our part of the world in the foreseeable future. It might never occur in our country but “might” is the operative word. I would have thought that the options we face are pretty clear. We can revert to the attitude with which I began this speech of saying: “I don’t like it I don’t want to be part of it it inconveniences me I’m not prepared to accept any wider responsibility until tragedy strikes” or we can take a preventive attitude. I look at the Counter-Terrorism Bill and at the Terrorism Suppression Act that it supplements as being part of that preventive attitude. That is why I believe it is in our best interests. 
There are valid points to be raised about the limitations on individual freedom and whether the powers contained in this bill when handed to unscrupulous Governments create an intrusion into the rights of ordinary New Zealanders that we would find intolerable. In response to that argument I say that it has been raised many many times over the years in many different circumstances. With the exceptions of perhaps the Public Safety Conservation Act of 1932 and the waterfront strike regulations of 1951 the reality of this country has been that we have been blessed with Governments and leaders over the years who have not so indulged. It is not part of the New Zealand character to become involved to that degree in the repression of our own citizens. While members may say that that is a remarkably complacent view it is a realistic one given our circumstances. Therefore when we paint pictures of what might happen and of what risks might be imposed on New Zealand safety we need to test them against the record. In that context the measures contained in this legislation are a small price—if any price at all—to pay for maintaining a degree of security and freedom in our world. 
I pick up a point that Dr Mapp raised. There is some validity in the argument that this bill as promoted as a counter-terrorism measure contains a number of other measures that go well beyond the sweep of counter-terrorist behaviour. Dr Mapp made the point that in such circumstances perhaps there should be a wider public debate. I note that we received some 25 submissions on this bill and only 11 of those submitters chose to be heard. The issues were canvassed widely but the issue that he paints as the base of his concern has some validity. It was a fine-run thing in the select committee as to whether we separated the bill into two bills or whether we proceeded with it as a single measure as it has been reported back. On balance the committee came to the view that a comprehensive package was better than two separate packages. 
There is one other element I will refer to and the Minister referred to it in his comments. This was the first time that the Attorney-General came before a select committee to discuss advice given under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I was particularly pleased with that because it arose from the committee’s consideration last year of legislation concerning the Kyoto Protocol. At that time we were in the somewhat bizarre position of being advised by the Minister what the decision was in respect of compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but the Minister then indicated that she was unable to advise us what the content of the advice was because of some ancient 19th century legal precedent which created an absurdity. Here we were charged as a select committee with determining whether a bill was appropriate but with one hand tied behind our backs. 
It is to the credit of the Attorney-General and others that it was subsequently decided that that procedure was a nonsense and that Ministers could come before select committees and make comments about the advice they had received as to compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I regard with some satisfaction that it was on this bill and before the same committee that that particular responsibility was exercised for the first time. I hope it will not be the last time because the discussion in terms of the implications of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act for this legislation was a valuable one especially in terms of some of the things we have just been discussing particularly regarding the limitations on individual actions that this legislation might impose on the wider public interest. 
In conclusion I make the observation that in many senses this legislation is not about New Zealand. Thankfully we are not a hotbed of international terrorism nor are we likely to become such a hotbed but this bill is part of a package of measures that have been implemented around the world since September 11 in order to demonstrate firstly an international unity in terms of the abhorrence of terrorism and a determination to stamp it out and secondly some degree of consistency in terms of the procedures being adopted across nations and borders to try to eliminate that threat. I am under no illusion—and I suspect most members feel similarly—that this removes absolutely and for all time the threat of a terrorist outburst in New Zealand. That can never be the case. The best any legislative environment can seek to achieve is minimisation of the risk. I believe that in doing that this measure which supplements the work of the original anti-terrorism legislation is appropriate. It is something that the House is of a mind to support and I believe we should proceed to do so. We can hardly claim we are rushing this though. It has been almost a year since the bill was introduced. The Terrorism Suppression Act took just under a year after September 11 to pass. There has been plenty of time for the consideration of all the issues involved. The debate has been a reasonable one and it is now time to proceed with putting this measure into law.