Locke Keith: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12806] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 It is good that people are talking in this debate about the rule of law because I think that is at the heart of it. Wayne Mapp also talked about it in a historical perspective going back to 11 September 2001. The key thing is that most people around the world—90-something percent of the citizens of the world—recognise that an undermining of the rule of law has accompanied George Bush’s so-called war on terror. They see that in Guantánamo Bay where people are not subject to the rule of law; they are subject to interminable executive detention without any access to judicial process or with highly flawed access when in the odd case it does occur. 
We have seen huge injustices being brought in under the auspices of the terrorism laws. We saw that just across the Tasman a few months ago in the Haneef case whereby an innocent Indian doctor was persecuted by politicians at the highest level who were determined to get him and cancel his visa and do all kinds of things. Even though it was clear that he was totally innocent the politicians were determined to make a scapegoat of him. That is the problem. The Haneef case is a good example of why one should not as has happened since September 11 substitute judicial power for executive power. That is exactly what has happened and this bill is a part of that—substituting the Prime Minister’s approval for that of the High Court in relation to extending the terrorist designations. The Prime Minister—and we have a pretty good Prime Minister in most respects—can be a little prejudiced or the system can go a little wrong. 
Just to indicate how the executive branch can undermine the rule of law I say we saw that in the case where Helen Clark was subject to a private briefing on what was happening in the recent alleged terrorism events—and I will not get into the detail of them. We do not know any of the detail of the charges other than that they are in the general category of arms charges. We do not know any of the evidence. Yet Helen Clark got up and said on the basis of her private briefing that those arrested in the terrorism raids had “at the very least … illicitly used firearms constructed Molotov cocktails and trained themselves in how to use napalm”. That illustrates why it is wrong to give a Prime Minister power in such cases. We saw that across the Tasman with the Minister of Immigration getting right in there—boots and all—to try to get that chap Dr Haneef. 
The Greens are very much in favour of the rule of law. The submissions both on the original bill and on the amendment bill came from a range of organisations probably including all the civil liberties organisations in the country and came from the most highly trained lawyers—the ones most conscious of the rule of law and civil rights issues—and the Human Rights Commission which wanted a whole review done because it could see that this amendment bill and the original Act breached the rule of law in many respects and made it unfair for our society. The New Zealand Law Society in its submission said we do not need a body of law and something called a terrorist act to override what is already covered. All the crimes are covered in the Crimes Act already—every single last one. Whether they be conspiracy crimes or participation in a criminal group—whatever crimes members care to name—then they are covered. The Law Society said that if there is a little twist and one says the particular crime was committed with the aim of terrorising a population—and that can be a twist as to whether it involves a criminal gang or a political group—then the judge can take that into account in sentencing. The judge has the power to take into account whether there has been terrorism—be it in a local suburb for some criminal reason or in a group or community for a political reason. The judge can take that into account in sentencing. 
We do not need to have a whole realm of laws on top of the existing law. The Law Society said that would lead to great confusion as to which charge to lay: the terrorism charge or the criminal charge. If we lay both charges then we will get a plea bargaining system whereby someone will look at it and say that for participation in a criminal group the maximum sentence is 3 years’ imprisonment but that for participation in a terrorist group the maximum is 14 years. Therefore people may plead guilty to the lower charge even though they are innocent in order to get off the charge that carries the higher sentence on conviction. That is the problem.