Prebble Richard: Counter-Terrorism Bill — First Reading 
Prebble Richard: Counter-Terrorism Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4627] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to say that we support the Counter-Terrorism Bill. I say to the previous speaker that just reading out some notes is not actually participating in the debate. It leads me to believe that that member has not read the bill and I am wondering whether the previous speakers have read it either. Although I accept the point made by Mr Jones—that it seems counter-productive to be passing a counter-terrorism bill at the same time that we are breaking the relationships New Zealand has with other security organisations—let us look at the bill itself. Of course we need to pass legislation with regard to nuclear materials. I do not think that any MP—although one never knows what the Greens are going to say—is in favour of the importation of plastic explosives. So one can see that we need international cooperation to track down that sort of material and yes we need to pass laws to make sure we can do something about it. But when I look at the bill I realise that there are serious civil liberties issues involved which no member has bothered to discuss. 
I see that the bill is going to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. Our foreign affairs committee is not known for its knowledge of the law or for its industry or for looking after the interests of New Zealand citizens. It has for example had a petition from the Chinese community sitting in front of it for months and it has not bothered to look at it. It does not care about those sorts of issues. It is normally the committee that puts forward an argument as to why it should travel yet again to Australia. I do not believe that that committee under Mr Dunne’s chairmanship is a fit and proper committee to be looking at these serious issues. 
I want to draw the attention of the House to some of the clauses. I do not know whether the Greens have read the bill but I think they would be very wise not to vote for it because it would appear to me that under this bill they are in danger of going to jail for 7 years. That is a very attractive proposition I guess for many of us. 
Hon Member 
: What does the bill say? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I will read it to the member. I am referring to new section 307A “Threatening to do harm to persons or property’ which is inserted by clause 7. Subsection (1) of that new section states: “Every one who intends to cause significant disruption to commercial interests or government interests is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years if without lawful justification or reasonable excuse that person—“(a) threatens to do an act to cause harm to persons or property: “(b) communicates information about harm to persons or property.” Members should read the Greens’ website. I had it checked again this morning and if members go to it they will see that there are links to international organisations that boast about the damage they have done to various commercial interests. 
Indeed there are Green members of Parliament who have a string of convictions for causing damage to property and to commercial interests. The Green Party has boasted about how its members have pulled up genetically engineered (GE) crops or crops that they thought were GE. I believe that the Greens would also be caught by the clause about contaminating food crops water or other products. There is no doubt in my mind that that provision as it is read would have a grave effect upon the Green Party and its friend Greenpeace. It would appear to me when I look at the description of a terrorist organisation that even though the Government itself may not have decided to call the Greenpeace organisation a terrorist organisation it fits the description. There is no doubt about that. The Green Party has broken the law. It has tromped all over commercial interests. Members of the Green Party frequently state that they do not think the law should apply to them and that they are able to put their political causes ahead of the law. 
There is another interesting little provision in clause 7. Section 307A(2) inserted by clause 7 states: “To avoid doubt the fact that a person engages in any protest advocacy or dissent or engages in any strike lockout or other industrial action is not by itself a sufficient basis for inferring that a person has committed an offence under subsection (1).” That is very interesting. It appears to me that the Government is saying that people who cause any property damage are liable to 7 years’ jail but that if those people say they are on a protest then they are not. It appears to me that if people want to do a terrorist act in New Zealand they can just shout: “Long live Saddam Hussein!” as they throw their hand grenades at the Devonport naval base and cause damage. Then when they go to court they can say: “Well I was just making a protest.” Is that the purpose of the clause? The clause is an absolute nonsense. 
I ask the House whether anybody thinks there is anyone on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee who is capable of telling us what those two clauses mean. Tim Barnett would not have a clue. I say to the House that yes we need to look at the question of terrorism—and the ACT party is probably stronger on defence than any other party in Parliament—but that we have concerns. [ 
Interruption 
] The member—I think her name is Georgina Beyer—just made a contribution to the House. She did not once comment on this clause. I do not think she has even read it. I ask that member as she wants to interject whether she is concerned about the civil liberties involved in that clause. There is a great silence now. I suspect that when the bill went to caucus she did not ask Mr Goff: “Well what does this mean? Are we going to send Green MPs to jail for 7 years?” I know that that is a fairly attractive proposition. I realise that the cost of keeping a Green MP in Parliament is about $90000. If we put one of them in prison the cost would be $60000 so we would make a $30000 saving. But the trouble with MMP is that we would just get another one so what is the point? 
Sue Kedgley 
: What about your MPs? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The member asks about my MPs. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I do not mind answering the interjection Mr Speaker. My party is actually in favour of the rule of law and property— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but there will be no interjections from that quarter. That is the rule. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I do not mind handling them Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I do. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Righto—no interjections. I was looking forward to being able to reply. When I look at clause 15 I wonder what the House thinks about it. I am referring to the ability of customs officers to seize property including cash without any court order at all. Customs officers can seize cash and cash includes cash equivalents including bearer bonds gemstones money orders postal notes precious metals and travellers cheques. The bill further states in new section 47D (3) which is also inserted by clause 15 that: “ the Customs need not return the goods as provided in subsection (2) and may continue to detain them pending a direction by the Prime Minister under section 48 ...”. Do we really want to pass a law that allows the Prime Minister of New Zealand to hold and detain cash that has been taken from citizens? Do I trust the Prime Minister? The answer to that question is no I do not. As Mr Jones has said I think that our Prime Minister is capable of making extraordinary errors of judgment. I think that she has made great errors of judgment in the last week. Now we are passing a law stating that our Prime Minister can decide whether cash or material will be returned to citizens. Is the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee going to look at that provision? Obviously it is not because not a single member of that committee has mentioned any of those clauses. Now that I have drawn them to the attention of Green Party members I suspect that they might start to realise—because they are in danger. I do not think that they ought to be deciding this issue. We cannot have the terrorists deciding whether they want a counter-terrorism bill can we? We know what their answer would be. 
I believe that this bill has serious civil liberties issues in it. If we pass measures to protect liberty and if those measures so strong that they take away our liberty then the bill—which states that it is a counter-terrorism bill—might be a counter-liberty bill. I think that there are serious issues in the bill and I am disturbed that it is being passed under urgency. I make this final point. Probably the people who cause the most terrorism in New Zealand are the gangs. They also cause most of the drug problems. We have been told by the police for years that they want to have the drugs classified as class A drugs and this Government cannot get around to it. Yet here we are in urgency rushing through terrorism measures. We are able to act in this area but we are not able to act on the gangs. This bill should be looked at very carefully and it ought to go to a better committee.