Shirley Ken: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9342] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party will be supporting the Counter-Terrorism Bill and its various derivatives. The debate on the appropriateness of the title is very interesting. It has gone along the path of whether it is the nature of the act or the motive of the perpetrator that defines something as terrorism and that is a legitimate debate. 
ACT certainly upholds the rights and freedoms of individuals and in many respects would probably have views that are not too dissimilar to those of the Greens. 
 We also acknowledge the role of the State and the powers of the State that are necessary to uphold those rights and freedoms. But that is where we can come to a dilemma: the powers of the State can reach a point where in purporting to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals they actually erode them. As legislators I think we should always be very mindful of that fact when we give powers to the State because there are some quite awesome powers that legislators give to various States and some States do abuse those powers—that is reality. 
But like it or not the world has changed. We are in a war against terror there are unforeseen consequences and we need to play our part in it. It is important though that we do not get carried away with the rhetoric and the emotion of the time and overplay our hands. But there is no doubt in my mind—and certainly ACT’s position is quite clear: we support appropriate measures to give powers to our Government in cooperation with other likeminded Governments to combat what has become international terror perpetrated on a planned international scale. The scale on which that terror is now being enacted is something we have not seen before. 
We note the various components the bill is being split into: the Crimes Amendment Bill the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill the Sentencing Amendment Bill and also the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill. Each one of those is a sensible component and we understand and support the reason for it being separated at this stage. However I still have considerable reservations—and I suspect that the Minister in the chair does also—about the breadth and direction of these powers. I guess my plea to the Minister—and the ACT message to him—is to always remember the rightful role of the rights and freedoms of individuals and civil liberties. There is a point where excessive powers in the hands of the State will begin to trample on the rights and freedoms of individuals. That said the ACT party supports this bill—not in its entirety as my colleague has pointed out but the overall direction of it. 
Various comments have been made about the plight of Ahmed Zaoui with regard to this issue. On that issue I do not have sufficient information and I am not sure that anyone has. I think it is very dangerous for members of Parliament to leap to conclusions without adequate information. We are being denied access to that information which is regrettable so it comes back to having faith that the powers that be are exercising those powers judiciously and appropriately although we can never be sure of that. But at face value I am certainly not convinced that Mr Zaoui is a terrorist as some would purport. The very fact that he is fleeing from a corrupt regime speaks volumes in itself. A very corrupt regime in Algeria has put him on the top of its wanted list which I think is a useful example of the propensity for emotion to overrun logic and common sense.