Gallagher Martin: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
Gallagher Martin: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13000] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I will take a relatively brief call. First of all I commend members of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and the chair Dianne Yates for their work on the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the contribution of previous speakers and I acknowledge that there is a genuine variety of points of view. With due respect I do not agree with Mr Hide’s description of this legislation. However it is wonderful that we live in a democracy and have a Parliament where members can use very strong language to discuss this legislation because they have very strong views about it. But those views are something I do not share. 
A number of columns have been written in recent days on events that have occurred in recent times which we are all aware of. They have formed something of a backdrop to the third reading of this bill which was being considered by the select committee long before certain activities in New Zealand came into the public arena. Obviously the members of the select committee had no way whatsoever of knowing what was pending in terms of police actions being taken against certain individuals and organisations. I would take this opportunity to note a recent column by Chris Trotter in I think the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 which was quite clear and concise. Basically in the end he stated that in a democracy arms and free speech never ever go together. It is quite an obvious statement but it is good to have it restated. I think we need to refrain if you like from making some romantic historical interpretation of the recent activities until all the facts are able to be tabled in a court. We should suspend judgment until that time. 
To put this bill into perspective I say it will bring New Zealand law into line with that of other countries with which we share and enjoy the stability and security of a fair and respected legal system. There are not many countries in the world that can genuinely say that. In my view there are many countries where that is not the case. The select committee’s review of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 identified a number of issues around whether the Act was meeting New Zealand’s international obligations. As I understand it after studying the select committee’s report the Government concluded that those issues needed a legislative response. Once again I commend all members of that select committee from across the political spectrum—which they are on that select committee—for their work. I acknowledge with respect that there are differences of view to which I and other members listen very closely on that committee. 
The bill contains amendments to bring the 2002 Act up to date with our current obligations and with further international developments and treaties and sadly as I noted the actual substance of the bill has been overshadowed by recent events. I think that that fact is quite unfortunate—and I stress this point for the record and to those who are listening to this debate today. I think a degree of suspension of judgment is in order in terms of our having the full facts come out in subsequent court hearings. It is really unfortunate that the bill has been overshadowed by recent events because the bill is the product of several years’ work by the select committee and officials. 
I stress again that the bill amends the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 in order to meet New Zealand’s international obligations. That is what it attempts to do. It will bring our legislation up to date with international developments and treaties on terrorism suppression. That is what it attempts to do—pure and simple. This is not some kind of knee-jerk reaction or response to the events that have emerged in the public arena in our nation in the last few weeks. The bill is aimed at amending the 2002 legislation to conform to New Zealand’s obligations under United Nations charters and to make the provisions in the current legislation workable as well. It removes the designation process for UN-listed terrorist entities in order to better reflect the mandatory nature of New Zealand’s UN obligations and to remove any risk of inconsistency. Noting the provisions on the freezing of terrorists’ assets and the offences involving nuclear material I say the legislation will further ratify New Zealand’s international obligations on terrorism and tries to sort out loopholes and inconsistencies in the 2002 legislation on terrorist offending that needed to be addressed. 
There is a lot of luxury in terms of the media comment and comment by others. One does one’s best on the basis of the evidence that one has at the time and it is my considered view that that is what the select committee has attempted to do from across the political spectrum. Having said that I acknowledge the deeply held views of a number of members of this House. I respect them. I do not happen to agree with those members who oppose this bill. Without further ado I compliment the select committee on its work. I believe that every member of this House is trying to come to a considered view and I do not think we should underestimate the importance of this legislation. We should not underestimate the importance of having continued dialogue in our community and the importance of talking with each other. 
But dare I say it—and I quote from writers who have made this very obvious point—we should never ever forget. That is why we had the peace process in places like Northern Ireland Cyprus and other countries. We—thank goodness—are not anywhere near to going down that road at all nor will we ever do so if there is constant dialogue. But caches of arms and political movements do not equal democracy. They do not equal everything that we stand for fundamentally. The notion of rigorous debate—even diverse debate with deeply held views and the rigorous demonstrations that I witnessed in recent times even at a Labour Party conference—is part of a democratic process. We can agree strongly with some of the demonstrators and their behaviour but the notion that we should turn a blind eye and say it is OK for any organisation in this country whatsoever to somehow have a notional cache of arms if that is the case and to be a legitimate political movement within our democratic society is not correct. Just as that was clearly not the case in Northern Ireland Cyprus and other jurisdictions that definitely should not be the case in New Zealand. I certainly join with previous speakers in terms of their views on this issue. 
I commend this bill to the House in a considered way and I commend the work of the select committee.