Worth Richard: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Worth Richard: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21663] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 We have just listened to a very fine speech from the Hon Richard Prebble on a concern that I think is widely felt in this House and for those who are listening widely felt outside it. We have a party—the Green Party—that through its representative is opposed to the provisions of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2). It is opposed to the creation of an offence that has for its purpose compliance with international standards for counter-terrorist financing and to the creation in specific terms of an offence in connection with funding terrorist groups. 
Whether it takes the form of bombings hijackings shootings or assassinations terrorism is neither random spontaneous nor blind. It is a deliberate use of violence against civilians for political or religious ends. It seems to me that it is characterised by four key elements. Those elements are that first it is premeditated planned in advance rather than being an impulsive act of rage; second it is political not criminal like the violence that groups such as the Mafia use to get money but designed to change the existing political order; third it is aimed at civilians not at military targets or combat-ready troops; and fourth it is carried out by sub-national groups not by the army of a country. 
The word “terrorism” itself was coined during France’s Reign of Terror in 1793. Originally the leaders of that systematised attempt to weed out traitors amongst the revolutionary ranks praised terror as the best way to defend liberty but as the French Revolution soured the words soon took on grim echoes of State violence and guillotines. 
There is nothing new about terrorism of course. The oldest terrorists were holy warriors who killed civilians. One can think of the 1st century situation in Palestine where Jewish Zealots would publicly slit the throats of Romans and their collaborators. In 7th century India members of the Thug cult would ritually strangle passers-by as sacrifices to the Hindu deity Kali. In the 11th century in the Middle East the Shiite sect known as the Assassins would eat hashish before murdering civilian foes. 
The Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002 the principal Act which is the subject of amendment and present debate has had something of a chequered history. This is the second time since 2002 that the legislation has been amended. I echo the comments made by others that when National becomes the Government in September we will need to take a hard look at this legislation and deal with some of the deficiencies that have been identified. 
The Act’s original purpose was to implement the obligations for New Zealand law in connection with the bombings convention the financing convention and the anti-terrorism resolution of the United Nations. Then in 2003 the nuclear material convention and the plastic explosives convention were added to the provisions of the Act. 
There is no doubt that the legislation has shortcomings and they include the involvement of the court in the extension of the designation of terrorist entities. It is interesting to see that that responsibility is now to be imposed on the Chief High Court Judge. Most of us involved in the law have seen the role of that particular official as being concerned with the expeditious dispatch of the court’s business. In my view that official should clearly not be cast in the role of determining whether designations should enure. That is the first aspect. 
The second aspect I would identify is that I doubt whether the best way of dealing with terrorist groups is by designation in the way the legislation contemplates. Whatever the number is—I think 450 was the suggested number of groups that are currently outlawed—that seems to me to be an unworkable arrangement. 
It is also right to say that religiously motivated terrorists like al-Qaeda are less restrained than other terrorists. Earlier arch-terrorists such as Carlos the Jackal and Abu Nidal never contemplated much less attempted the complete destruction of high-rise buildings packed with people. But for those religious groups such as al-Qaeda the Arabian-backed Hezbollah the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo and the Palestinian group Hamas mass killings are considered not only acceptable but holy. 
The rise of terrorism since September 11 has of course produced new strategies and new thinking. In the context of New Zealand defence arrangements where there was for a time a passing interest in what one might call some form of niche response we have had to move on from there. We have had to move on in substantial measure because of the challenges that asymmetric warfare poses. The responses that may have been satisfactory several years ago are now not satisfactory. I think it is a matter of regret that the New Zealand Government has not yet sufficiently caught up with that change. 
So here it is—the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) which National supports is on the brink of being passed. We support that legislation for the reasons I have indicated but we see a clear need for the legislation to be reviewed both as to its content and as to the underlying strategy behind it. I join with other members of the House in expressing shock at the comments made by the Green Party in its apparent refusal to accept that terrorism is a real issue that must be confronted head-on.