Rich Katherine: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Rich Katherine: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21638] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 It is interesting to listen to Keith Locke talk about this bill because he makes comments about “real terrorism” as if somehow there is terrorism that is not genuine. It seems that Keith Locke believes that terrorism is very much in the eyes of the beholder. He says that one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter. I cannot think of any person in this country who would see Osama bin Laden as a freedom fighter. So I endorse the comments made by Richard Prebble. 
I am concerned about clause 4 and I draw the attention of the Committee to something I think could be a loophole in that clause. Clause 4 states that it is an offence if we give money to someone knowing that they will benefit and the entity has to be one that carries out or participates in the carrying out of one or more terrorist acts. My question to the Minister in the chair the Hon Rick Barker is why does he specify the number of terrorist acts—because for example we could have a situation whereby a company—[ 
Interruption 
] If the Minister would stop laughing and listen to my point he might find that it is a valid one. 
An organisation or a trust may be set up for the express purpose of carrying out terrorism acts but may not have actually done anything yet. Clause 4 states that the entity is already carrying out or participating in terrorist acts. What happens if the organisation is set up for the express purpose of undertaking terrorist acts but has not done anything yet? So people could be giving their money to an organisation that has the intention of carrying out acts of terrorism but has not actually carried out any such acts. I wonder whether the clause could be improved by adding a reference that states something like “the organisation intends to carry out one or more terrorist acts”. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: You would have to prove it. It’s very hard. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I am not making a point about putting a number on it because I think that is fine. We want to know that they are participating in something. But what happens if the organisation has not done anything yet? That leads me on to my next point which is that the benchmark is set extremely high. How are we ever going to prove that someone intended to give funding to a terrorist organisation? How can we get inside the mind of that person? What sort of evidence will have to be demonstrated in order to prove that? 
At the moment our police have serious rape cases sitting in in trays. Is the Minister really saying that the police will turn their attention to finding out who Granny Rich gave her donation to in the main street of Wellington? The benchmark seems to be very high and I am concerned that the chances of catching anybody are just about zip. It has to be demonstrated that the person knew. How do we do that? It has to be demonstrated that the person intended the money to go to a terrorist organisation which is very difficult to do. As we know al-Qaeda is just one example. It works in little separate cells whereby even the people involved in those cells do not know whom they are linked to or what they are doing. 
The key point is that there is a loophole in that clause that one could drive a bus through. Frankly if anybody is serious about carrying out acts of terrorism all that person has to do is set up a new organisation that has not actually done anything yet—that has not bombed anything yet or killed anybody yet—and that organisation technically has not been involved in or carried out any terrorist acts at all. Listing that an organisation must have been involved in one or more terrorist acts does not capture organisations that willingly bring themselves together in order to continue acts of terrorism.