McCully Murray: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — First Reading 
McCully Murray: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8497] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I indicate in response to the Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee will indeed be giving careful attention to the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. The National Party of course will be supporting the introduction of this legislation and its referral to the select committee. We will give it the careful study that the Attorney-General has just urged upon the House and we will also be using that opportunity to urge that the Government show some vigilance in using the powers that the Act bestows upon the Prime Minister in particular. 
I was one of the members of the select committee that took part in the tail end of the review process that Dr Cullen has just talked about. We were constrained very tightly—being a newly formed committee just after the election—by the time available to complete the review. It was very much a pro forma sort of report that went forward. But even in the context of the very brief hearings that we had I have to say that I developed some very serious concerns about the way in which we go about our detection of terrorists and the way in which our authorities are given the opportunity to superintend the efforts of those people in New Zealand. I want to address this first reading speech in the context of those concerns. 
 As Dr Cullen has told us the original legislation the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 arose from the events of September 11. This bill does not precisely mirror legislation passed in other jurisdictions of our type but it does in broad terms. I think Dr Cullen properly concedes that there were some inadequacies in the original legislation and it is timely for us to address them. Some would say we should have done so earlier; indeed I am on public record as having said that myself. 
The Attorney-General referred to the two different vehicles that the original legislation provides for dealing with terrorists. Fundamentally this bill is a tool kit for the authorities in this country to be able to look after those whom they fear will engage in terrorist activities on our shores. The original legislation deals with two different courses: first United Nations Resolution 1267 which deals with the al-Qaeda or Taliban activities; and second United Nations Resolution 1373 which deals with other terrorist groups that New Zealand authorities believe are a threat to this country. 
In respect of the first category which concerns the Taliban-related terrorists under Resolution 1267 Dr Cullen correctly told the House that this bill proposes some changes that the select committee members had in their minds when the committee reported to this House. The bill abolishes the nonsense of the High Court of New Zealand having to consider whether a designation should take place when that designation had been put in place by the United Nations Security Council and the New Zealand authorities could have absolutely no idea why the Security Council did it. The New Zealand authorities may have no access to the information that the council had and we would have the ludicrous situation where the New Zealand authorities would have to present a case to the New Zealand courts to uphold a designation without having any information in order to do so. So we have a very sensible solution. We have the United Nations Security Council list becoming the New Zealand list as far as Resolution 1267 designations are concerned. 
With regard to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 this bill makes an important change in respect of the other terrorist groups—the ones that we are supposed to identify as posing a threat to New Zealand and to New Zealand’s friends and to put on our list. The bill leaves the Prime Minister in charge of that process. The Prime Minister can designate and renew that designation and I support that. Whoever the Prime Minister is in New Zealand will be a person who has won a mandate from the public. That person will generally be the Minister responsible for the SIS and will be in receipt of the confidential briefings that occur in that role. Somebody has to carry that burden and I am perfectly happy to support that change. Personally I think that the Prime Minister of New Zealand should have that authority. So in that sense I have no difficulty in supporting this provision in the bill introduced into the House today. 
Where I do have a problem is in the use of the tool kit that the original legislation provided and that now this bill will provide for the House. In other jurisdictions we have seen a very different course followed. All countries of course have followed their obligation to put the Taliban-related terrorists on the United Nations Security Council list on to their own lists. We have been obliged to do so and we have done so. But in relation to UN Resolution 1373 our behaviour has diverged very sharply from that of our neighbours. 
It is worth inspecting that track record briefly in relation to this bill. I ask members to look at Australia. Under United Nations Resolution 1373 Australia has designated 88 terrorist entities. So it has taken fairly seriously its obligation to identify those terrorist groups to give its authorities the power to watch those groups and to take some action against them. Canada has over 50 groups on its list in relation to Resolution 1373. Since 2002 how many groups has the Prime Minister of New Zealand designated under Resolution 1373 and put on our list? She has not designated one. Not one terrorist entity has been designated by the Prime Minister of New Zealand under the powers given to her by this House back in 2002. 
It is not rocket science. We have a very open border with Australia. Even if we take the very charitable view that New Zealand has no terrorist risk—and I certainly do not take that view—we would certainly have to take the view that there is a terrorist threat to our nearest neighbour Australia with whom we share an open border. If I was an Australian I would be looking at New Zealand and shaking my head and asking what risks we were visiting upon our nearest neighbours by our behaviour under this legislation. 
In Australia 88 terrorist individuals or organisations have been designated according to Resolution 1373. New Zealand has not designated a single one. I tell the House in relation to this measure that outfits like Hezbollah are on the Australian list—I have the list here; I am happy to table it for members if they want to see it. The al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade is on the Australian list. Hamas is on the Australian list. The Abu Nidal Organization is on the Australian list. The Tamil Tigers are on the Australian list. The Real IRA is on the Australian list. The authorities in Australia see those organisations as being of sufficient threat to their country and its people to put them on the list of Resolution 1373 as designated terrorist groups. Not one of them is on the New Zealand list. That poses a real question for this House not just about the safety of New Zealanders but about the safety of those in Australia. 
I say to the Attorney-General as he introduces this bill that National will support the bill. National wants to send it to the select committee it wants to see the provisions of the bill looked at very carefully it wants to have the officials in front of it and we want to know just how much this Government and this Prime Minister have been flirting with the security of New Zealanders. This issue should be taken deadly seriously by every member of this House. It is going to be taken deadly seriously by the National members on the committee. We want to see no stone left unturned when it comes to the protection of the security of New Zealanders. 
This bill will certainly provide for some improvements but it will be worthless if the Prime Minister of New Zealand does what she has done for the last 4 years—which is to not use the powers under this legislation that authorities in Australia have been so ready to use as they exercise concern for the welfare of their citizens. So I warn the Prime Minister and the Government that as we look at this bill we will also scrutinise the conduct of the Government and we will be making sure that it does better in this matter. This is a vital piece of legislation before the House today and it will make some improvements but we will need to see some improvements in the conduct of the Prime Minister and the Government if it is to be utilised with effect.