Peters Winston: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Peters Winston: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12962] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This is a day for some recanting and for some apology on the part of some people in this House who rushed out and gave their views about certain proceedings in the middle of the North Island and elsewhere without waiting for the due process of the law to take its course. Now that the Solicitor-General has decided he will not authorise actions under the terrorism suppression legislation I wonder what those members will say. They all knew apparently before everything ever happened that the whole system would be unfair and unjust to people who had been picked up by the police. Now today we know that that is not true. We know that serious charges still lie but in the case of the terrorism suppression legislation they will not. I hope that some of those members of Parliament who have been so cavalier about their responsibilities and so jaundiced in their view of our society and indeed of this Parliament will have the courage to come to this Parliament and say they were wrong. 
Pita Paraone 
: They won’t. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I do not suppose they will but it is time for some recanting. 
The legislation we seek to pass is the culmination of an extensive review of the Terrorism Suppression Act that was commenced by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee in 2005. It is not connected in any way to the recent events even though many members of Parliament and other commentators have said as much. Recent events to some extent have diverted attention away from the substance of this bill. That is unfortunate because the genesis of the bill does not lie in those events but is a product of several years of work by the select committee and officials to strengthen and improve the working of the Act an Act that will obviously need further improvement. 
This bill will not substantially change the way the Act operates; rather its primary purpose is to make the Act more workable and to ensure that its provisions reflect New Zealand’s international obligations. The changes proposed will bring New Zealand law into line with that of other countries with which we share and enjoy the stability and security of fair and respected legal systems—one of which is to have by reference from the Attorney-General a finding from the Solicitor-General as to authorisation. By the way I suppose a lot of people wrote to the Attorney-General and said that just in case the Solicitor-General makes a mistake and says we should go ahead with the Terrorism Suppression Act charges he should override him. You know when people make public comment they really should be required to show a bit better knowledge of the law than that. 
I want to take this opportunity to clarify the effect of the bill’s more contentious provisions and to touch on the main amendments that will be made to the Act. First the bill proposes amendments to the current process for designating United Nations - listed terrorist activities or entities. Considerable confusion has surrounded the scope of this provision to the extent that some parties have claimed that the automatic adoption of the UN list of terrorists will affect the right of New Zealanders to support liberation struggles democracy and human rights overseas. I want to take this opportunity to make it clear that the UN list relates solely to al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorist entities. In order to comply with mandatory Security Council obligations new provisions were required to ensure that under UN resolution 1267 which deals with al-Qaeda and Taliban activities terrorists are automatically designated as terrorist entities under New Zealand law and that those designations remain in force until entities are removed from the UN terrorist list. That will ensure that New Zealand complies with its obligations under the UN Charter. Under the law as previously drafted that was not assured. 
Responding to concerns that New Zealanders may be erroneously included on the UN list the select committee has recommended that the Minister of Foreign Affairs when exercising his or her authority to publish the UN list includes information as to how a designated person or group can seek removal from the list. That recommendation will be followed. If New Zealanders were ever included on the UN list the notice advertising the listing will set out the process for challenging the Security Council’s listing decision. In essence the persons could apply to be de-listed directly to the focal point established for that purpose by the Security Council committee that maintains the UN list. Alternatively they could ask the Government to submit a de-listing request on their behalf. 
Turning now to the process for designating non - UN-listed terrorist entities I would like to make clear that for the most part there will be no change to the current process. The Prime Minister is currently responsible for making interim and final designations on non - UN-listed terrorist entities. The bill will simply amend the process for renewing non - UN-listed designations after a 3-year period. The Prime Minister rather than the High Court will now be responsible for renewing a designation if satisfied on reasonable grounds that the entity continues to be engaged in terrorist activity. That approach is consistent with that in similar jurisdictions whereby decisions at the renewal stage are made by the same office holder who made the original designation and the same test is applied. As the committee itself has noted decisions to renew a designation like decisions to make an initial designation involve judgments about national security and are more appropriately made by the executive than the judiciary. 
When the select committee was considering this bill it was careful to ensure that each amendment struck the appropriate balance between the preservation of civil liberties on the one hand and the need to protect New Zealand’s national security on the other hand. When considering the appropriate process for renewing designations we must note that the Act provides an important safeguard by virtue of the right to bring judicial review of designation decisions which is preserved in section 33. The committee added a further safeguard by inserting a new provision that will require the Prime Minister to report to the Intelligence and Security Committee when a designation is renewed. 
This bill will further enhance our counter-terrorism legislation by creating a new offence of committing a terrorist act. That offence is aimed at conduct involving terrorism that is at the very serious end of the spectrum and as such it can be seen as being similar to other international crimes such as genocide and crimes against humanity. The offence carries a high threshold with the Attorney-General’s consent being necessary for prosecution. The definition of a terrorist act also sets a high threshold. To be classified as such the action must satisfy the intention purpose and outcome elements of the definition. That definition will be interpreted strictly and in accordance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
The bill will also bring increased certainty to the provisions of the Act relating to terrorist financing offences by repealing the avoidance of doubt provisions. Those provisions were designed to clarify the ambit of those offences; however they have done the opposite of that. The provisions have created uncertainty by confusing the mental elements of the offence. Because of the way the provisions are drafted they have the potential to undermine one of the key purposes of the legislation which is to criminalise the intentional financing of terrorist acts. That would be inconsistent with both Security Council resolutions and our own position that acts of terrorism cannot be justified. Removal of those provisions will not compromise the right of New Zealanders to engage in or financially support peaceful protest activity. The Act’s very definition of a terrorist act expressly states that legitimate protest advocacy or dissent is not by itself a sufficient basis for inferring the intent to commit a terrorist act. 
This bill will also incorporate amendments necessary to bring New Zealand up to date with its international obligations by creating new offences involving nuclear and radioactive material. Those are required for ratification of the International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and to ensure compliance with recent amendments to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. 
I will close by saying that I commend this bill to the House because it is required. It needs to be passed before 1 December 2007 in order to meet our international obligations. But I end this speech where I started by saying that today is a good chance for some of my colleagues in this Parliament to begin to recant and apologise for their irresponsible unparliamentary juvenile jingoistic and insensitive behaviour in so far as the law enforcement authorities of this country are concerned. The Solicitor-General has commended the police for their processes and for the way that they went about their business. He said that in all of that no one was shot and no one was hurt. The police are to be commended for that. But it does not help when people out there—and many of them are Maori—are judged as being racist purely because they belong to a certain group that wears a uniform on behalf of maintaining the security and the defence of us all in this country. I think that before this debate is over we will find out whether some people are capable of admitting they were wrong. Maybe in the future they will remember this: before one rushes to judgment one should get the facts.