Cullen Michael: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12966] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 The Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill has basically three main elements. The first is matters dealing with the financing of terrorism; the second is in relation to the possession of radioactive materials; and the third and perhaps the most important in the New Zealand context is the fact that designations will in future be carried out by the Prime Minister thereby avoiding the problem that this bill has to pass by 1 December to deal with in that a very large number of such designations will lapse at the end of this month. One of the reasons for the very large number of designations is that a lot of the groups designated appear under a very large number of different names in various parts of the world. Those who are followers of Monty Python will recognise the syndrome in that regard. There are also a number of minor matters in this bill. 
I think it is very good that we are debating this bill today and the principal piece of legislation the Terrorism Suppression Act because of the announcements made by the Solicitor-General at 4 o’clock this afternoon. There has been much hysterical huffing and puffing over recent weeks about the Terrorism Suppression Act. Indeed the key aspects of much of that huffing and puffing contained a strong element of contempt for the rule of law. We have heard demands from people that the Government should be telling the police what they should be doing in terms of their investigations the way in which they carry them out whether they carry them out and whether any charges should be laid. We have seen continual attacks on the police often on the basis of extraordinarily flimsy evidence and indeed contradictory evidence from those making the complaints in the public arena. 
We have seen calls for political control of the process of the consideration of the laying of charges. This afternoon I received a letter from a large number of people that told me that I should overrule the Solicitor-General if the Solicitor-General chose to lay charges. It strikes me as extraordinary that people who object to the Prime Minister designating as terrorist entities groups that have already been listed as such by the United Nations—it is not a kind of random list that the Prime Minister makes up as she or he goes along—should on the other hand turn round and say that a Cabinet Minister should overrule the Solicitor-General when it comes to issues of the rule of law and the laying of charges. That is political interference. Telling the police what to do is political interference. That is what happens in countries like Fiji and Pakistan. It is not what happens in countries like New Zealand. 
We have also seen many people including I am afraid some members of this House in effect casting judgment on matters in the absence of evidence that are properly the precinct of the legal system to consider and decide upon. This House does not try people and find them innocent or guilty. That is a matter for the courts. 
I want to refer to what the Solicitor-General actually said before there is a great deal of misinterpretation of his announcement which I am sure is about to occur within this House. He said and I quote: “Having considered in detail all of the available evidence I am very satisfied that the Police had a sufficient and proper basis for investigating the activities in question under the provisions of the Terrorism Suppression Act. The Police have in my opinion also acted very properly in referring the evidence to my office so that I could make an assessment as to whether or not charges should be brought under the Terrorism Suppression Act.” He then deals with some issues that I will come back to in a minute. He goes on to say: “In summary the key reason why I am not prepared to authorise prosecutions under the Terrorism Suppression Act is because I am of the view that at this stage there is insufficient evidence to establish to the very high standard required that a group or entity was planning or preparing to commit a terrorist act as that term is defined in the legislation.” 
 That is quite crucial. What the Solicitor-General is saying to us is that those people who claim that this Act is some kind of means by which the Government can suppress legitimate and peaceful protest or dissent were and are talking rubbish. The Act actually has a very high threshold before any kind of charge can be laid. Indeed the Solicitor-General points to the fact that there are problems with the Act that make it difficult to lay such charges in part because it deals with an international terrorist context. I will be taking seriously his suggestion of referring the Act to the Law Commission and will refer the Act to the Law Commission for its consideration in that regard. 
I think we need to note that the Solicitor-General also goes on to say: “Some may try to interpret my decision as a criticism of the Police. Nothing could be further from the truth. In my view the Commissioner of Police and his officers have acted entirely appropriately in referring the evidence to me. … I wish also to stress that the Police have successfully brought to an end what were very disturbing activities. That the Police did so without a single shot being fired injury or loss of life is a tremendous reflection on the professionalism and integrity of the New Zealand Police.” 
Some of the evidence that was relevant to what the Solicitor-General was considering will of course come out in the consideration of the charges under the Firearms Act. Some of the evidence will not come out under those considerations—that is evidence under interception warrants etc. which of course are not relevant to the Firearms Act charges. That evidence will never see the light of day. All I can say having read some of that evidence as Attorney-General and having been advised by the Solicitor-General is that I believe that what the Solicitor-General said is absolutely correct—the police had a reasonable basis on which to refer matters to the Solicitor-General. 
Let us not pretend that we are dealing with a brutal and repressive police force acting at the behest of the State and in an uncontrolled and unjustified fashion. That is not what the Solicitor-General has said. Anybody who claims that this statement is some kind of vindication of all those involved is misreading what the Solicitor-General said.