Hayes John: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hayes John: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12786] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill but make it very clear that there is no possible way we will be agreeing with any part of Keith Locke’s Supplementary Order Paper and its proposals. He is overlooking the fundamental importance of measuring the balance of rights for the individual against the balance of rights for our community. I think that is a very very important element that Mr Locke—and our colleague in the Maori Party also—is overlooking. It is really important that this amendment bill is passed and progressed because the legislation has been out of sorts with our obligations to the United Nations and to our neighbours for the last 4 years. 
Although the National Party supports the bill we also have strong doubts as to whether the legislation’s enactment will result in a more vigilant stance against the risk of terrorism by the New Zealand authorities. I say that because since the 2005 review of key clauses of this bill National members have constantly expressed deep concern that although we have upheld New Zealand’s obligations under the United Nations Security Council’s Resolution 1267 to designate as terrorist entities in New Zealand those entities that have previously been identified as al-Qaeda or Taliban - related entities by the United Nations Security Council the Prime Minister has still yet to designate a single terrorist entity under United Nations Resolution 1373—that is a non-al-Qaeda or Taliban - related terrorist group designated at the initiative of United Nations member nations. Through this period our Australian colleagues across the Tasman have designated 88 terrorist entities. On the other side of the Pacific in Canada the Canadians have designated a further 50 terrorist entities under similar legislation. 
The Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 provides a very useful set of tools for the authorities here in New Zealand to protect our community against the threat of terrorism. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about a threat to our community and we have to balance that in opposition to the rights of the individual. Inevitably that judgment will be a subjective one. I think there is the possibility of a threat to civil liberties for a designated person to be overridden by the greater concern of the whole community. That is a constant balance and that is why most of us are in this Parliament: to help make judgments on that issue. 
A number of submitters who came to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to discuss this issue with us—Rosslyn Noonan and others—were concerned that the information that might be held about people should be made fully available to them. We in the National Party are very happy that the Prime Minister—who would normally be the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service and who I know is regularly briefed by the officials engaged in that work—makes this decision provided she— 
Eric Roy 
: He or she. 
JOHN HAYES 
: —provided he or she accounts to this Parliament as to what he or she is doing. The fact that no terrorist designations at all have occurred under Resolution 1373 I think is a matter of profound concern for the people in my electorate and for the National Party which I represent. Eighty-eight countries have been designated by Australia in the last 5 years; we have done nothing. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: 88 countries! 
JOHN HAYES 
: Eighty-eight individuals. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: You said “countries”. 
JOHN HAYES 
: Yes I was checking to make sure the Minister was awake. In the case of Canada at least 50 individual entities have been identified. There has been no credible explanation given to the select committee as to the reason for this total failure on the part of the Government. 
I would like to refer to the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 and particularly to section 5 which is where a terrorist act is defined. This is what Keith Locke and his Green colleagues need to understand. They should go back and read that part of the Act very very carefully. The Act makes it very clear in subsection (2): “An act falls within this subsection if it is intended to cause in any 1 or more countries 1 or more of the outcomes specified in subsection (3) and is carried out for the purpose of advancing an ideological political or religious cause and with the following intention: (a) to induce terror in a civilian population;” and secondly “to unduly compel or to force a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act.” 
Keith Locke 
: It’s “or” not “and”. 
JOHN HAYES 
: I said “or”. It is all very well for those of us living here in New Zealand to think that that seems a bit over the top. But I well remember walking the streets of Istanbul doing my job as a New Zealand representative in that country and witnessing a bomb going off within 100 metres of me. People were killed. 
Hone Harawira 
: This is not Istanbul. 
JOHN HAYES 
: This may not be Istanbul but it is New Zealand and we are part of a global community. The risks are very much here as they are in Istanbul or anywhere else. The Act particularly states the point of taking issue with people in this legislation is if they intend to cause “the death of or other serious bodily injury to 1 or more persons (other than a person carrying out the act):” or if the intention of the person is the “destruction of or serious damage to property of great value or importance”. Imagine a bomb being placed for example in an aircraft in our sky or on a ferry in the middle of Cook Strait. Untold damage could be done to our community by such an action and it would not be especially difficult to do it.  
Section 5 of the Act talks about “serious interference with or serious disruption to an infrastructure facility if likely to endanger human life:” or—and this could happen in New Zealand—the “introduction or release of a disease-bearing organism”. Imagine if somebody came into this country and released the organism for foot-and-mouth disease— 
Keith Locke 
: Calicivirus. 
JOHN HAYES 
: Or calicivirus. Yes that has been done. But let us think about foot-and-mouth disease because that would destroy our economy overnight. It is all very well for the Green Party members to sit back there and irresponsibly laugh and joke and think that this bill is just an infringement on human rights but the community has rights in this country. I believe in upholding the greater good of the community because that is what the people in the Wairarapa expect me to do. Those people are New Zealanders and they do not want a wishy-washy arrangement in this country whereby we have legislation we have signed up to arrangements at the United Nations and we have done nothing about them. 
The point of this bill and of the work of our select committee over the last 9 months has been to encourage the Government into action to define very clearly who is a terrorist and to meet our international obligations. Belonging to the United Nations means we must meet our international obligations and we must in this country sign up to the rules and decisions of the United Nations Security Council. That is simply what this legislation is doing. Madam Chair thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of this bill.