Prebble Richard: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Prebble Richard: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21651] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the debate on the first clause of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) and to say that members have to realise—and I think most members do—that the world faces a difficult situation in deciding how to combat terrorism and what action should be taken. What the world has decided—and I use the word “world”—is that one measure is to designate terrorist organisations. The United Nations an organisation of which I am often very critical has designated a number of organisations as being terrorist. 
We then had the matter raised by the Green MP that it is most important in fighting terrorism that we do not give up our human rights. That is an argument towards which the ACT party in particular is extremely sympathetic. But then I look at the bill to see whether there is any substance to that argument and I find it extraordinary that Mr Locke cannot actually produce that substance. Instead he told us about what the United States has done in Guantanamo Bay and what Britain has done. 
We all know that British laws are much much tougher than this legislation. Britain has had problems with the IRA for the last 30 years. They have people letting off bombs in the Tower of London. There is a power in British law whereby people can actually be held without charge. [ 
Interruption 
] Now the member is interjecting on me. I just point out to him that he is wrong in using those examples to then tell the public that that is what this Parliament is doing in this bill. 
When we look at the bill we find that there is a provision in clause 4 that deals with people who knowingly—“wilfully”—give money to a terrorist organisation that they know is carrying out acts of terrorism. According to Mr Locke that is a violation of human rights. What human right? There is no human right of being able to give money to other people to kill people. In fact there are no human rights unless we have a system of order. So Mr Locke is completely wrong on the first point he raised. 
His next point was about the listing of terrorist organisations which raises an interesting discussion as to whether that is a matter for the administration or for the courts. I say to Mr Locke that he ought to listen. Every lawyer in Parliament has said that that is not a matter for the courts. That is not what courts are set up to do. They are not equipped to do it; they do not have the staff and the like; and it is actually a matter for the administration. Those are the facts. 
Then we heard the Minister say that New Zealand does not automatically take all the United Nations’ designations of terrorist organisations and that we still look at the data before adding them to the list. But there is an idea that we should go along with listening to the Human Rights Organisation New Zealand—paid for by the New Zealand taxpayer—defend 413 terrorist organisations as no doubt it would. We have already seen the debacle that occurred with regard to Mr Zaoui. The designations are not a matter for the courts. I therefore ask Mr Locke given that he cannot put up the arguments on this bill why he is putting up that point. 
Mr Locke asks why people are questioning his motives and the reason is that we have studied him. We have seen him for the last 40 years and the only consistent position that he has had for 40 years is that he is anti-American. 
Keith Locke 
: I support the American peace movement— 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Oh he supports the American peace movement. America has 300 million people and I am sure he can find within America some people who have similar views to his own. That does not mean that he supports the United States and its institutions. He says he supports the American people but the American people actually voted for the present President. But no doubt Mr Locke would say according to his warped view of the world that that vote was rigged as well. If we look at his record in  
Hansard 
 we will see—even in this debate—that he has been unable to put together his argument without dropping into his anti-American rhetoric and that is why members say that he is not a Green but a red.