Roy Heather: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Roy Heather: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8509] 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the first reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill on behalf of ACT New Zealand. For many of us terrorism brings to mind the images of 11 September 2001. That day brings to mind images of heroism and indeed of sadness; images of people jumping from windows before the World Trade Center fell; and memories of the shock waves that were felt right around the world including in the far corners like New Zealand. We also remember 7 July 2005 when terrorists bombed trains and buses in London and we remember the Bali bombings of 2002 where our Australian cousins were directly targeted. 
The purpose of terrorism of course is to spread terror. The purpose of terrorism is to undermine reason with fear. The purpose of terrorism is to change our societies not through the power of ideas but through the power of car bombs and suicide belts. 
Although New Zealand is a small country a long long way from the world’s trouble spots we must be alert and vigilant. We have in this very building a stark reminder that no country is immune. On the wall of the steps down to the basement hangs the torn New Zealand flag that was rescued from the ruins of the World Trade Center. That flag was unearthed in the rubble and returned to New Zealand. On 11 September 2001 ACT spoke in this House about the need to defend our way of life and to preserve our freedom. We spoke about the fact that as long as we refuse to live in fear the terrorists can never win. 
Many measures and many laws have been put in place since that time—11 September 2001—in an attempt to combat terrorism. Many powers have been bestowed upon the State. However when the State is required to act in such a strong manner there must be strong safeguards in place to ensure that this overwhelming power that the State has been given cannot be abused. For this reason the ACT party will be opposing this legislation. 
The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee toiled over the Terrorism Suppression Bill for many months in 2001 and 2002 and there have been many references to those discussions in this House today. Both submitters and the committee itself were greatly concerned at the powers they were handing to the State. So the committee introduced a substantial role for the courts to play in monitoring the way in which this legislation was applied. These strenuous efforts made to ensure that there was a significant judicial role in the review process were in ACT’s view right and proper at that time. The bill that we have before us today—the amendment to the principal Act I have just referred to—removes almost all those protections that that committee introduced and we find that unacceptable. When this bill is referred to the select committee after today’s first reading—and it seems clear that it will—the committee should be very mindful of the discussions the submissions and the committee’s views as determined at that time because they were put in place for very good reasons. 
My colleague from the Green Party Keith Locke has pointed out a great number of very pertinent issues in his speech and it does not hurt to remind this House of some of those. The High Court previously was given the task of overseeing the 3-yearly review of the terrorist designations. These will now be done by one person the Prime Minister. In regard to that Keith Locke has said that given the serious consequences for anyone designated a terrorist it is unfair for the person who made the original designation the Prime Minister to be the person later checking whether it was accurate. The only legal avenue open to a designated person is a difficult and expensive judicial review and these points should not be forgotten. Judicial review is not an adequate process by which to appeal a designation under this legislation. It can be complex drawn out and prohibitively expensive especially for those who may have had their assets frozen under the provisions of this legislation. 
A background note was distributed with this bill and it made for some quite interesting reading. It was distributed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs—the Minister whose name this bill is in—the Rt Hon Winston Peters. In this background note the Minister stated: “It has become an administrative burden to require the Prime Minister to designate so many names to keep up to date with the changes and additions to the Resolution 1267 list.” Well if that is the reason for bringing this amendment bill before the House that is nothing short of shameful. The Prime Minister carries a heavy burden of responsibility and if it is the intention of this Government to absolve her of that responsibility I think it needs to take a long hard look at why it is in power. 
 The list currently has about 460 entities on it. It is simply not good enough for the Prime Minister to shirk her responsibilities—her duties—in respect of the bill in this way. What we must do is protect our nation’s sovereignty. We cannot delegate the power to unelected bureaucrats to designate the term “terrorist” on any person or any organisation without some form of oversight from our elected officials. 
Terrorists want to destroy our way of life and to take away our freedom but we play into their hands if we surrender our freedom by passing bills such as this. This is a very appropriate time to remember—and I have borrowed some words here from a senior Australian officer—that the term “war on terror” is an oxymoron. Terrorism is a tactic and war is a strategy—a strategy with goals and aims in mind—and we should remember that the term “war on terror” is an oxymoron. It is the intent of terrorists to grind the activities of the Western World to a halt. With many of the measures that have been put in place since September 11 we have in fact aided terrorists in their goal to do just that—to grind the activities of the Western World to a halt. 
One of the Ministers who seems to have disappeared now mentioned that the anti-smacking bill related to the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act. He was quite right in pointing out that that bill has similarities with this bill although I think his intention was somewhat different. With this bill as with the bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act there will be unintended consequences. 
Terrorists are not worried about local laws. They do not worry about the fact that we are sitting here in this House today debating this bill and trying to do something to combat the acts of violence and terror they bestow upon the world. It should be remembered that when we have laws they should be enforceable and regularly enforced. We should not be putting laws in place light-heartedly. So today in the name of protecting our freedom we are being asked to surrender it and that is something that the ACT party cannot and will not support. For that reason we oppose this bill.