Smith Lockwood: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Second Reading 
Smith Lockwood: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9156] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I say to Matt Robson the Progressive member who has just resumed his seat and who has just delivered us a monologue on citizens’ rights that 2 weeks ago I stood beside the gaping hole in New York that was the twin towers of the World Trade Center. I say to Matt Robson and to Keith Locke for that matter what rights did the people have who had to jump out of those buildings 80 floors up—or however many floors it was—because they were being boiled to death and had no other choice? 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Don’t use that sort of argument. It’s cheap. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Matt Robson says that is a cheap argument. If the authorities in the United States of America had tracked those terrorists who had done nothing wrong at the time they entered the United States—they just had evil intent—then what would have happened to those people whose rights were totally destroyed as they threw themselves out into oblivion 80 floors up? 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Here we go! 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Matt Robson says: “Here we go”. Can he imagine the horror of that? What rights did the people in those aircraft have as with terror they saw that they were going to be ploughed straight into those buildings and incinerated like that? In some ways they were possibly the lucky ones. The ones who threw themselves out of the windows would live for seconds before they were crushed to death on hitting the ground and those horrific seconds would have just been so awful. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Whose argument is that? 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I say to Matt Robson that rights are a relative thing. I will stand for the rights of people to be protected from criminal terrorist activity—that is what this legislation is about. It is all very well talking about the niceties of the rights of people who would never contemplate these things but the kind of mind that is involved in terrorism requires special action. People like the Progressive Matt Robson and Keith Locke make me feel sick that they show such little concern for the rights of the Parker family who lost a son in Bali. What rights did those young people have as they were obliterated by that bomb? 
It is so easy to stand in this Parliament and rabbit on about the rights we should protect. Of course we should make sure that people’s rights are protected as far as possible but we should also make sure that our legislation can save this country from the effects of the kind of terrorism we saw in New York and Bali. We should make sure that our citizens never suffer from the absolute deprivation of rights that those people in New York suffered from. To stand beside that gaping hole to read what is written on those simple fences beside it is very very moving. I suggest that Matt Robson and Keith Locke go and do it and just reflect on the rights of the people who died that day. I suggest that they compare that with their concerns about people being tracked in this country should our authorities believe that those people came into this country with the kind of evil intent that the terrorists who went into America had. 
As we went through the select committee process with this legislation it was interesting to note that so few Government members had taken any notice of it when it was introduced. When people came along to make submissions it was quite a circus as Labour members suddenly realised that this bill had some quite wide provisions in it—that it enhanced general police powers especially their powers to track people and get access to their computers. It was quite amazing to see the way Labour members had not even realised that. It kind of shows the lack of coordination within the Labour Government that its own members did not even understand what its legislation was doing. 
To add to the circus on 31 July this year the select committee was about to deliberate on this legislation and I had to remind the Labour members that they had invited Professor Matthew Palmer to make a submission. The select committee had not even given Professor Palmer the courtesy of considering his submission. It shows the seriousness with which Labour members addressed their own bill when I an Opposition member on the committee had to point out to them that if they deliberated on it right then they would not even have considered Professor Palmer’s submission—after he had gone to all the trouble of responding to a Labour member’s request that he make a submission on the bill. 
Some provisions in this bill do enhance police powers and give them greater power to track people. It has some really important powers to protect us better against biosecurity threats. It is fascinating the way attitudes were flushed out as the select committee considered this legislation and we have heard it in the debate tonight. It is fascinating to read the commentary in the bill as reported back from the select committee especially the Green minority view. The Greens are concerned that this legislation might inhibit their mates’ rights to protest in this country in a way that causes major economic loss to one or more persons. What is amazing about that is that the Greens seem to believe that their rights to just trample all over other people’s rights should have priority. That is what they are worried about in this legislation. Keith Locke said it in the House tonight and it is in his minority report on page 13. It is right there in black and white that Keith Locke is concerned that this legislation might reduce his rights to trample over other people’s rights through protest action—that somehow the protest action of Green members is more legitimate than other people’s rights. 
I find that offensive but not as offensive as their lack of concern for the rights of people who have been the victims of terrorism. They have such distorted minds if they think their rights to protest in a manner that destroys other people’s well-being and other people’s rights should go uninhibited. If this legislation required them to think about causing major economic loss to other people maybe that would not be a bad thing. I have no problem with protest action so long as it does not trample over other people’s rights in this country. From a reading of the Green Party’s minority report that is something it does not seem to understand. 
Finally we have heard a number of people say they that would like to see the Privacy Commissioner’s draft amendment incorporated into this legislation—an amendment that would limit the use of tracking devices. The reason the select committee did not incorporate it is that it is a significant issue on which the public have been given no chance to make submissions. It is not that the select committee said the Privacy Commissioner was wrong; it is just that it believed that the public of this country should have the chance to make submissions on an issue as significant as that. I think the select committee recommended that the Government should pick up the issue for the future but before it is included in law in this country the public should have the chance to make submissions on it. 
While this legislation is not perfect National supports it because we believe it is important for New Zealand to carry out its international obligations with regard to the protection not just of the citizens of New Zealand but in a globalised world of all citizens from the evil of terrorism. This Counter-Terrorism Bill implements United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 and various other international conventions that New Zealand is obliged to implement in its domestic law. It has the support of the National Party. We recognise it is not perfect but we believe in protecting people from the evil of terrorism.