Goff Phil: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Goff Phil: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:423;Page:18566] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I move  
That the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
 It is my intention to move that the bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for consideration that the committee present its final report on or before 31 May 2005 that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Order 191 and Standing Order 194(1)(b) and (c). 
This brief bill contains three matters. The first relates to the expiry of the designations of terrorist organisations. Provisions in the existing Act mean that New Zealand’s designations of terrorist organisations including several hundred organisations listed by the United Nations Security Council expire after 3 years unless renewed by order of the High Court. The drafting of that provision created the unintended need for each designation to be renewed individually meaning that it would be impossible to renew the first 318 United Nations Security Council - listed designations that New Zealand has listed before they expire in October. That would put New Zealand in breach of Security Council Resolution 1373 which was passed unanimously by the United Nations in the wake of September 11 and of other related resolutions. 
In order to avoid that this bill will extend the designations for 2 years after the date on which the select committee reports to Parliament. The extension will allow the select committee review of the Act due to be reported back by 1 December 2005 to consider fully what changes if any should be made to the renewal process. At the time the original bill was first introduced there was uncertainty as to the nature and the extent of the terrorism phenomenon. An assumption that some designations might be short lived has since proved to be false and New Zealand now has over 420 designated terrorist organisations all of which are on the United Nations Security Council list and is considering adding more groups to that list. 
The second change proposed involves extending the provisions of the Act that prohibit the financing of terrorism. Although the Act currently prohibits the financing of designated terrorist organisations or financing that is known or intended to be used for the purpose of carrying out terrorist acts it may not cover general financial support not directly linked to a specific terrorist act to an organisation that is involved in terrorism. That would cover things such as the payment of general routine expenses rent etc. To address that potential loophole the bill creates a new offence as new section 8(2A) of the principal Act that will criminalise the provision of general financial support to all terrorist organisations whether designated or not. That is needed if New Zealand is to comply fully with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 and the standards required by the OECD’s financial action task force. Given the fluidity of terrorist movements and the unpredictable emergence of new terrorist groups that change is the most workable way to ensure that New Zealand remains compliant with international obligations prohibiting the funding of terrorist organisations. 
The third proposal in the bill involves a technical amendment to change an existing reference from the Chief Justice to the Chief High Court Judge. Section 38(3) of the principal Act states that if information presented or proposed to be presented in support of an application to the High Court includes classified security information the proceedings must be heard and determined by the Chief Justice by one or more judges nominated by the Chief Justice or by both. With the creation of the Supreme Court since the principal legislation went through and the Chief Justice’s membership of the Supreme Court now it is obviously more appropriate that the person specified for that function should be the Chief High Court Judge. 
I commend this bill to the House.