Swain Paul: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Swain Paul: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2007. Volume:643;Page:12688. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 That speech made by Tim Groser in which he congratulated and praised the speech made by Opposition spokesperson Murray McCully will not do his promotional chances in the National Party any harm at all— 
Hon Member 
: How are yours going? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: —I do not need to worry about mine. I was pleased to hear that speech. I agree with virtually everything the member said including the very high level of agreement apart from that of the Green Party on the major aspects of the bill. 
I do not want to go over all the old arguments that have been made but I will just make three broad comments at the start. I agree with the member for Ohariu-Belmont in that this bill was the product of quite a major review of the Act so the implication that somehow this bill has sort of popped up out of nowhere because of the events of the last week is just plain silly. 
The second issue we grappled with quite considerably in the select committee concerned the balance—which the member who has just resumed his seat talked about—between the right of people to protest in a democratic community and the right of the broader community to come down very strongly against those who want to commit acts of terrorism against it. That balance was quite openly debated. 
Thirdly I want to make it absolutely clear that this legislation as that member also said is to do with timing in Parliament. It has nothing to do with the events of the last week. 
The select committee has made a couple of really important changes. The renewal of the designation process was something we spent some time on and now it has been recommended—if I remember rightly the recommendations were from some National members—that the renewal process be taken to the Intelligence and Security Committee. I think that was a good suggestion. In the end I think there is potentially some transparency in that which would involve all party leaders in Parliament. 
We also looked at the new offences involving nuclear material and we said they were too broad. It is a bit disingenuous for the Green Party member to make comments about the fact that this will mean that people cannot protest against ships carrying nuclear waste. In fact I will read from the committee’s commentary on the bill: “We were concerned that the proposed new offence of committing an act against a nuclear facility in clause 13(3) was too broad and could apply for example to protest action against ships transporting radioactive waste through the Tasman Sea.” So we actually listened to what the member said made changes and narrowed it down yet he still wants to criticise the committee— 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is misquoting; I said no such thing. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Well notwithstanding that the member could have at least said that the committee took some positive action on some of the comments that were raised. 
Finally there is an issue about the new immigration bill. There are some processes in there relating to classified information and decisions to be made under that legislation. So we decided that once that immigration bill had been passed we should look at the relationship between it and this particular legislation. I support this bill and commend its further progress in the House.