Peters Jim: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Peters Jim: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21658] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First to again add our support for the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) which amends some sections of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002. I also rise because my colleague Dail Jones is unable to be here today. Therefore I begin by going back to the report of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and to the matters that were raised in the Chamber last night concerning the change indicated in my colleague’s proposed amendment because those matters are still valid and important. 
In submissions made on the bill one of the major issues for those submitters and the committee must have been that in the catch-all legislation that this bill is about to embody the funding of legitimate humanitarian or human rights activities should not be impaired. Last night Mr Jones took some time to very ably indicate his and our caucus’s view on those matters. We were reassured by the Minister who said in his second reading speech which he later reaffirmed for the Committee that the intent and the wording was not to catch such funding and that humanitarian or democratic rights groups acting solely in humanitarian ways were not intended to be subject to that clause. So last night New Zealand First withdrew its suggested amendment. 
When the leader of United Future and chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee the Hon Peter Dunne spoke on these matters in regard to the actual matter that Dail Jones was concerned about namely clause 4 which inserts proposed section 8(2A) I was somewhat confused by Mr Dunne carefully going through the suggested new section and saying that test by test the threshold was so high. I also had in mind that earlier the Hon Richard Prebble had talked about this show clause. When one really looks at the actual law in practice I think that Peter Dunne had it right. This threshold may be so high and may seem to be so inclusive but in fact the series of tests that must be met will result in no activity at all in actual practice in regard to this clause. 
Contrary to what Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith has said section 8(2A) in clause 4 and section 8(1) of the principal Act are in reality not so far apart. Notwithstanding the language the officials have carefully put together by trying to be all things and setting so many tests in legal practice this may not work as the committee intended. I am not signalling that my colleague was wrong in regard to this clause. I am saying to members that this particular section may yet prove to need further amendment if it is to achieve the intention of the committee. That may yet prove to be the case. 
On behalf of New Zealand First I say that we broadly support the intentions of this bill because we all know that since September 11 of 2001 there has been a change not just to the Americans but also to our world. We received an understanding that into our sphere of influence—and we all realise how close the issues of Indonesia have been in recent times—came a sophisticated selectively targeted type of terrorism that some countries unfortunately had known for many years which knew no favourites and had no agendas other than exactly as we saw in regard to the events of that day. The territorial boundaries were no longer there in regard to that world and our world. 
New Zealand First has been very very concerned over several years about the border and entry of people to this country and has seen particularly in recent months that the Government has been unable to say with any great assurance that its immigration policy is able to identify each and every immigrant in the defined way that it ought; New Zealand First and the Rt Hon Winston Peters have exposed the inability of the Government to say that person A is that person has that history and has that record. In the sort of environment that we have today this bill is very much needed. 
Therefore we support the bill. We support the need to look further at those designations and contrary to what the member from the Greens has said the matters that are before us are matters of law. What may happen to another country is of no concern to me or to New Zealand First. We take the United Nations designations in regard to who should be a group. But the real matter of this bill is what pertains to New Zealand’s legal system and to our law. All the examples that I have heard from the Green Party are of no significance against the fact of what we think is desirable practice. 
In saying that though as a law and order party we at all times would wish that this be strictly in accordance with sound legal practice. Political judgments must in the end be judgments that can be justified in law. This bill does just that. We support its passing and we look forward to the fact that it is but one step we hope to greater security at the border and for New Zealanders. We also look forward to the final report later in the year that should give a completeness and a comprehensiveness that this short amendment bill does not give. 
Finally on behalf of New Zealand First I say that we are pleased to support this bill further earnestly hoping that the intended objectives will be achieved although I must say personally and on behalf of Dail Jones a wee bit of residual doubt remains.