McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3460] 
5.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Has she designated any individuals or organisations as terrorist entities under section 20 of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 apart from those designated under United Nations Resolution 1267 (1999); if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 No. There has been no advice that such designation is justified at this time. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether it is the case that Rayed Mohammed Abdullah also known as Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali who was expelled last week under section 72 of the Immigration Act was on an alert list held by the New Zealand border authorities and managed to slip past them or that he was not on any such list at all? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I will not comment in the House on who is or is not on lists but I can say that this man presented as a Mr Ali which was not information the Government had. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Why did the Prime Minister ask the House to pass the Terrorism Suppression Act in the wake of the September 11 attacks to provide special powers for the authorities in dealing with terrorists designated by her under section 22 of that Act if she did not actually intend to designate any such terrorists; can she explain why Australia has designated 88 and Canada over 50 non UN - specified terrorists under their legislation while she has designated none? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is a matter for those Governments acting on advice. I will act on advice if I receive it but I am not going to designate at whim. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: What confidence can New Zealanders have in our security arrangements when Rayed Mohammed Abdullah who was named in the official September 11 commission’s report as someone who flatted and trained with one of the September 11 hijackers and who made extremist speeches at the local mosque was not designated under the Terrorism Suppression Act or apparently placed on any other list of potentially dangerous individuals as someone whom we did not want to have in this country? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The confidence the member should have is that this man was detected and summarily deported. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm media reports that Rayed Mohammed Abdullah managed to get past the New Zealand authorities simply by adding the word “Ali” at the end of his name and should any terrorists out there take that as a signal that regardless of any alerts held against them they can gain entry into New Zealand simply by adding the word “Smith” at the end of their names? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would not recommend trying that no. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Has it crossed the Prime Minister’s mind that when Australia has used its post - September 11 anti-terrorist legislation to designate 88 separate terrorists or terrorist organisations Canada has designated over 50 and the New Zealand Prime Minister has designated precisely none she may just be giving the impression that New Zealand is a soft touch on matters of national security; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would not have thought that the Order in Council enabling the deportation of a Mr Ali would lead anyone to conclude that. 
Keith Locke 
: Would it not have been a bit silly to designate Mr Abdullah or Mr Ali when the United States interrogated him intensively after September 11 and did not see a need to deport him even though he was not a US citizen and could she without disclosing operational details give us a bit more of an explanation of why he was deported in view of the fact that the United States did not deport him? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My understanding is the same as the member’s: that this man was not deported from the United States. Personally I consider it a no-brainer that someone who has been a roommate of a 9/11 terrorist and who is having pilot training is here for no particularly good purpose. He seems to have had perfectly adequate English. He applied to come here to learn English. That is not what he set out to do. And he has gone.