Ardern Shane: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Ardern Shane: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21646] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 It is with some sense of anxiety that I stand to take a call on this bill which I had not heard of until about 11.30 p.m. last night when I happened to tune into the radio and heard a contribution from the Green member Keith Locke. It sounded quite reasonable and quite considered and was certainly backed up with quite a bit of information but then I started listening to what he was actually saying. I was reminded of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center that took place in America and I asked myself what Keith Locke’s position at that time was. I was very careful to listen to some of the detail in some of the contributions that came afterwards and I was reminded very clearly that at that point in time he gave no unequivocal condemnation of that event. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I say to the member who is interjecting with whom I have travelled overseas to places where this kind of tyranny takes place that he cannot have it both ways. There may be some concerns about the way the United Nations establishes its list and there may be some concerns about how countries like the United States impose their view as it were but at the end of the day he has to decide which camp he is in. He cannot have it both ways. At the moment we are here in the Chamber debating legislation that will shore up the list of organisations around the world that New Zealand recognises as having been terrorist in the past or may potentially be terrorist. Maybe we will get one or two of them wrong. Maybe a mistake will be made. Maybe the Minister or the Government will make a mistake—it is quite likely with this Government. But at the end of the day we have to decide where we stand. 
If one thing is absolutely clear to me in this debate it is that the Green Party is not actually green at all. That member in particular is not green at all. The Greens are very very red. They are hard red. They are not green on the outside and red on the inside. On these issues they are as red as anti-American and as anti-development as can be. That is exactly the kind of stuff that caused the problems that led to the major conflicts we have seen around the world. 
Keith Locke 
: What about the American Green Party? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I say to the member who is interjecting—and I am sure he has hoards of information that he will give to the Committee during this debate about the rationale around why the current Government in New Zealand is committing some kind of heinous crime against some poor unheard-of organisation in some dark corner of the world—that we have to make a call on some of these things. Occasionally we will not get it right. I suspect that with the member’s proposition we would end up in a situation whereby we would get it wrong far more often than under what is currently proposed to do. 
I ask the Associate Minister of Justice when he takes a call to answer some of the questions from my colleague the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith who has studied this legislation and knows the detail of it to spell out whether it were possible in the future going forward under—God forbid—a future Labour Government that he would end up doing a deal with those people. I think the public of New Zealand deserve an answer to that. As we move into the next election we are looking at who is on the political landscape. I say to anybody who might be listening that one thing that is absolutely clear in this Parliament is that the Green Party is not green. It is hard red. It is as far red as it can get. I suggest that those listening should take a lot of notice of what Mr Locke was saying and go and study the detail. I do not like the sound of it at all—not one iota. 
I also say to the Minister that if the 420 organisations that he has identified are registered on the list and if the United Nations is more or less in agreeance with it why is Part 2 revisiting the process by which that list is established? That is something I clearly have no understanding of at all. There could be a simple explanation for it. Why are we revisiting that at this point in time?