Locke Keith: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12801] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 This is a relatively small part of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill comprising amendments to other Acts. I think it is interesting to discuss this along with schedule 1 because if people read the Green Party’s minority report they will see there is a part of this bill that the Green Party does support which is the measure that enables us to adhere to two international conventions. Those are the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. I do congratulate the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. Dianne Yates spoke earlier and I was going to congratulate the committee as part of that discussion on making sure that our adherence to those conventions did not wrongly penalise people who may be involved in anti-nuclear protests. 
As members may know there have been protests in the past against nuclear waste ships passing through the Tasman between France and Japan—both ways I think—and a flotilla of peace boats went out and protested against one of those boats passing through the Pacific. The protesters did not actually stop its passage but they flew the flag and got a bit of international publicity. They were rightly very concerned about the safety of the nuclear waste materials on those long sea journeys between France and Japan. They were concerned that maybe something would happen to the boat and it would sink into the sea potentially creating a danger to our fisheries and our environment not far off the coast of New Zealand. So that was a very good protest. The Government itself was protesting in its own way about that shipment of nuclear materials. 
The bill as it was originally conceived had a good motivation: it sought to stop people from interfering with nuclear material in a way that would be harmful to the populace. But the original provision could have been interpreted as meaning that the act of stopping a boat that was passing through the Pacific—stopping the boat by means of a peace flotilla as people stopped boats in Auckland harbour during the protests against the visits of United States nuclear warships—might be deemed under the wording to be in contravention of this legislation and to carry a very heavy penalty. So the wording was adjusted in the select committee to avoid that possibility and that is a good thing. 
Another amendment was referred to previously although I do not know whether it was spelt out by anyone. It was a movement in a good direction: to refer any renewal of a terrorist designation—or any terrorist designation I think—to the Intelligence and Security Committee which is a statutory committee of this Parliament. It is made up of the Prime Minister the leader of the National Party who is called the Leader of the Opposition in the bill and in the case of the Prime Minister there are two other people and in the case of the Leader of the Opposition there is one other person. It is not a proper select committee. In an answer to a parliamentary written question I found that it has met for only 2 hours and 38 minutes in the couple of years since the election but at least it provides some little check on terrorist designations. There is some accountability even though I do not think the committee is able technically to cancel the Prime Minister’s designation but it is a step in the right direction. 
I am saying that because the select committee did discuss things and take on board some of the concerns of the many submitters who were against many of the provisions of this bill. I think that as a leading anti-nuclear nation under schedule 1 and the international convention it refers to we have to be part of the international campaign leading not only to nuclear disarmament but to stopping anyone in non-State organisations using nuclear bombs or using nuclear material in a way that is really disastrous to populations short or long term. The release of nuclear radiation into certain environments be they physical or sea environments can affect many generations of people into the future and their environments. 
In Part 2 there are some useful provisions at least in terms of schedule 1 although the other amendments in clause 46 to the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Act 2005 do continue some of the problems that exist in Part 1. The Greens will not be voting for Part 2 because of that problem. But we do want to endorse that part of Part 2 and the schedules namely schedule 1 that adhere us to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. Thank you.