Locke Keith: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Locke Keith: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21636] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding here. The original section 8(1) in the principal Act prohibited funds intended to be used for terrorist acts—funds directed towards actually doing terrorist acts. The new provision concerns the giving of funds knowing they will benefit an entity that carries out terrorist acts. 
 One of the points I think that was made by Lockwood Smith was that we have to have that provision because there might be front organisations and we do not really know whether the front organisation will do the terrorist act but the funds for the terrorist act may go via the front organisation—such as an al-Qaeda front organisation. 
But if members just leave it on that level I think they are misunderstanding it. That clause is aimed at stopping support for and in effect destroying such organisations one of whose activities is terrorist acts. I think we can put terrorism within an al-Qaeda frame too much in that al-Qaeda—[ 
Interruption 
] No let me explain that. The al-Qaeda is a very covert organisation it does not control any territory and it has conducted a series of horrific terrorist acts. It is different from organisations that are nationalist ethnic groups and liberation groups like the African National Congress in South Africa which have genuine mass support and often have controlled territory. 
In the case of some of the Palestinian groups perhaps we could put that definition on them—and on the Tamil Tigers. But it is questionable whether we can in fact define the Tamil Tigers as a terrorist organisation now. A lot of people would say that we cannot given the peace that has occurred in Sri Lanka for the last few years. But the Tamil Tigers are relevant to the debate because they are designated as terrorists by Britain Australia and the United States and are treated by some of our State agencies in a de facto manner even if not by the Government itself officially at a political level. 
That is a good test case. For instance if we want to advance peace in Sri Lanka and the welfare of the Sri Lankan people perhaps we can get off the topic of tsunami relief although that is also relevant. If we go back to the wording the Minister used we note that one has to have an intent to give aid while knowing that the organisation engages in terrorist acts. If we did define the Tamil Tigers as terrorists then a lot of people giving aid to tsunami relief would do it knowingly—that is knowing that the aid would go via a Tamil Tiger channel—so they would not in the Minister’s words “do it unwittingly”. 
But the problem is whether in our approach to helping the situation in Sri Lanka—both on the tsunami-aid level or on the political level of advancing the peace process—our aim is to destroy the Tamil Tigers. Destroying such organisations is the essence of this amending legislation as is the piece the Minister read from resolution 1373. Is our aim to destroy a nationalist organisation—be it the African National Congress in the past or the Tamil Tigers more recently—that has in the past engaged in some sort of sabotage or activity that has killed civilians and can be defined as terrorism or do we want to deal with New Zealanders’ support for real terrorist acts? 
If we look at the northern and eastern areas of Sri Lanka today we see that the Tamil Tigers are supported not just in terms of tsunami relief. I have been through the Tamil Tiger areas of Sri Lanka. I did that a couple of years ago. All sorts of aid organisations are there from Oxfam to Unicef and all the UN organisations are engaged in all sorts of projects including projects for building a civil structure and leading to an advance in the peace process.