Mark Ron: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mark Ron: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2007. Volume:643;Page:12681. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Well that was interesting. Can I say for a start that New Zealand First does find it somewhat ironic that we are debating the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill at this moment and that we will shortly follow that with the third reading of the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill which will seek to do away with the offence of sedition. It would be nice to think that the concerns that people have for the security of New Zealand might well have been part of the discussion we had yesterday in the Committee stage of the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill. It seems that New Zealand First is on its own on that bill but not so on this one. We support the passage of this bill. We believe that it does enhance the Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002. We understand the reason for the amendments to this bill that have been put forward. It is the need to ensure we are compliant with international counter-terrorism obligations including the provisions that cover the designation of United Nations - listed terrorist entities the extension of national terrorist designations after 3 years the freezing of the assets of a designated entity and new offences involving nuclear materials. 
It is interesting that we should be seeing legislation in that respect. It was not so long ago that I was reading books and seeing movies about fictitious attacks on Western democracies using small nuclear devices. People I have spoken to some of whom are in this House seem to share similar views that people then looked at such possibilities as being a nonsense as fiction and fantasyland. These days it is taken as a given that such potential exists and it needs to be countered or catered for. 
 I want to take the moment right now to point out because people tend to forget when they launch into vitriolic attacks on the counter-terrorism legislation and the actions of the New Zealand Police—and by innuendo make statements that are derogatory of and inflammatory about our security agencies—that these agencies are staffed and manned by personnel who in the main are New Zealanders. They are men and women mums and dads sons and daughters aunties and uncles—they are Kiwis. So New Zealand First wants it on the record here that we give our respect and thanks to the men and women who staff our security services in New Zealand be they with the Security Intelligence Service the Government Communications Security Bureau or the New Zealand Police or be they members of the Special Tactics Group the armed offenders squad the Special Air Service the counter-terrorist action groups or the Royal New Zealand Army Navy or Air Force. We want it on the record because we do not view those New Zealanders as irresponsible as irrational or as people who would act against the interests of their nation. 
Tariana Turia 
: What are you looking at us for? 
RON MARK 
: Well I am looking to my right because it is the Greens the Maori Party and the ACT party that are vehemently against this bill and two parties in particular have made some rather strong statements about the men and women of our security forces. By innuendo they have deemed them to be the types of New Zealanders who would specifically and deliberately set out to do ill to Maori without good cause and to do ill to any New Zealand citizen without good cause. They bring all Maori who serve in those organisations into disrepute. Let us be clear: the SIS is not staffed just by middle-class white Pakeha. 
Tariana Turia 
: It’s not the SIS. 
RON MARK 
: Well the SIS is involved in the security services and there are Maori in there. There are Maori in the Government Communications Security Bureau and there are Maori in the SAS. We all know about that now do we not? We know it very well. So let us be very mindful when we denigrate criticise and ridicule the police in particular of what it is we are saying. Let us also be mindful that many of those are Maori who have affiliations with many tribes. They are as I am tauiwi. I have whakapapa going back into Whakatohea as well through my grandmother on my mum’s side but I do not share some of the views that come out of the mouths of people and are trumpeted around this House as being the views of all Whakatohea people—they are not. 
But let us also look at the aspects of this bill that put the responsibility firmly with the Prime Minister in designating who is and who is not a terrorist which in the eyes of Rodney Hide is alarming. But Rodney Hide needs to look at the National Party’s minority report in the commentary on the bill. What I see in that report there is more alarming. The fact is that the Prime Minister has designated no one—no one I tell Rodney Hide—nobody. Far from a situation that that member has just espoused here where the Prime Minister is capable of designating the ACT party a terrorist organisation the real concern New Zealand First has is the concern so well expressed in the minority report by the National members that the Government has designated nobody. 
Rodney Hide 
: What about me in Epsom? 
RON MARK 
: Well Mr Hide may be somewhat misguided in some areas but he is not a terrorist. He terrifies some of his political opponents but he does not terrify me. The need to actually specify what a terrorist act is is smart; it is essential. New Zealand First has no issue with that. We point out though that terrorist acts by their nature must have a political motivation. For those who are challenging the police and making some rather outlandish statements about what they perceive as over-the-top reactions from certain people who have information available to them about activities up in Tuhoe land there is a political motive and background. 
I was of the clear belief that the motivation the goal of some Maori is to have sovereignty over New Zealand to achieve self-determination—to take back the land and rule as an independent nation—that is a political goal. What is interesting is the fact that no one has ever challenged these people to have them explain how they see themselves achieving that political goal. Is it by diplomacy? Is it by political activism? Is it by force of arms? The evidence that we are reading in the paper today would suggest that some people have given other people a clear impression that they intend achieving that political goal by force of arms. Some members may want to call that the activity of freedom fighters. Some members may want to sit in this House and envisage themselves as being a sort of replication of Sinn Fein in supporting their IRA mates out on the street but I say that that is terrorism. 
You see we are unique in this part of the world. We have enjoyed 150 years of democratic rule. We have seen many changes of Government and many of them have had hotly contested and fiercely fought election battles—and I think of the 1990 election as an example—but we have never ever in this nation witnessed an uprising or attempt to take control power or sovereignty by force of arms. 
Some would argue that if the police and the intelligence agencies throughout New Zealand have evidence that some people see that as a means—whether or not they are capable of doing it—there is an obligation to act. Let us be clear: some political parties in this House would be the first to string up the police if something did happen and it was found that the police had had intelligence but had not acted on it. 
That brings me to Mr Ross Meurant in my final minute I think I might have. Mr Ross Meurant astounded the nation by saying that he was brainwashed and that he believed that the police were overreacting and that their intelligence was misguided. He made a number of statements. This is the same Ross Meurant who in a post-protest meeting in Hamilton where protesters against the Springbok Tour actually breached the fence berated and belittled police commanders for failing to act on the intelligence they had that clearly pinpointed the part of the fence the protesters were going to target and breach. This is the same Ross Meurant who chastised criticised and demonised his commanders for not acting on the intelligence they had. 
I say to Mr Meurant that as time moves on some people’s memories get a little fuzzy and—to be kind—maybe that is what has happened. But I say to everyone in New Zealand that they should not judge the police hastily. We have a Police Complaints Authority and as a democratic country we have a process to hold people to account and to examine their actions after the fact. If they are found wanting no doubt we will hold them to account but right now we need to support the intelligence agencies and the police as they go about the work they have been given to do. New Zealand First supports this bill.