Locke Keith: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12781] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The last speaker Wayne Mapp said that the events of the past couple of weeks have nothing to do with this bill or vice versa. In one sense that is true in that this bill proceeded through Parliament by its own timetable and rationale. But it has a lot to do with the events of the past couple of weeks in the sense that when the original Terrorism Suppression Act was put through in 2002 there were a huge number of submissions critical of it. Many of them were from non-governmental organisations that were fearful that they and their members could be caught under that Act. Those same organisations are fearful today that maybe the Act will be applied in the current situation. The very questions of the right to dissent and not to be given a penalty for one’s political views were very much in the original debate back in 2002 and they are very much part of the public debate today. 
Wayne Mapp said that the time is coming up for the renewal under the original Act of the UN designations of terrorist organisations. But it is quite clear—and there have always been submitters on this both in the original Act discussion and on this bill—that the High Court is perfectly capable of renewing all those definitions if they are still valid. They do not need to go into a lot of high detail. In fact the original Act says that evidence from the United Nations is to be deemed as sufficient unless there is evidence to the contrary. So unless there is evidence to the contrary on any of those UN designations of al-Qaeda and the Taliban that are currently on our list and up for renewal the High Court does not really have to spend much time on it at all in a practical sense. What is so wrong—and the Green Party has this in our minority report—is to cut the court out of it altogether so that the Prime Minister representing the executive branch of Government does not only the original designating but also the review of those designations 3 years later and a renewal of them if appropriate. So that is the real situation. The problem with the so-called war on terror as a whole is that it has moved things out of the hands of the judiciary and into the hands of the executive in an excessive way. 
Wayne Mapp says that there is no real problem in our accepting the UN designations automatically into our law. Well there is a problem because it has been shown that the counter-terrorism committee hanging off the UN Security Council has made a lot of mistakes. It is a governmental system of Governments putting the terrorist groups on this list and they do make mistakes. If the United States for example wrongly put Wayne Mapp on the list and the counter-terrorism committee said: “Yep Wayne Mapp is a terrorist and he has to go on the list.” then that list comes through to New Zealand. Even though we know Wayne Mapp is not a terrorist under the proposal in the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill Wayne Mapp would have to be put on our list and all of his assets seized immediately. If he were an employer employing 5000 people that whole business might go down the tubes because of a lack of rationality and a lack of application of international human rights law giving justice and due process to someone like Wayne Mapp if he were deemed to be a terrorist. 
Wayne Mapp says that we have to obey the UN. There are two things we have to obey in this situation. One is the UN Security Council decisions under chapter 7 which are obligatory on Governments but parallel with that is international human rights law which gives due process and justice to anyone. Those are parallel processes. In my Supplementary Order Paper I specifically mention the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which might protect Wayne Mapp in the situation of the UN wrongly designating him to be a terrorist. Supplementary Order Paper 158 in my name would protect him and allow a situation of due process to apply. 
I will go through some of the other provisions set out on the Supplementary Order Paper. As I said before I am returning to the original Act and allowing evidence to the contrary to be brought into consideration of UN-originated designations. I also have an amendment omitting clause 6 which sets out a new offence called a terrorist act. The Law Society—that very reputable body—was quite clear on the problems that that new offence would cause for the judiciary running a whole parallel set of crimes. In any crime deemed to be a “terrorist” one there is an underlying Crimes Act offence as well. The Law Society said that the new offence of a terrorist act would appear to have the potential effect of greatly increasing the penalty imposed on persons who are convicted of committing a terrorist act where the underlying crime is relatively minor. So I am attempting through this Supplementary Order Paper to remove the term “terrorist act” from the bill because it is unnecessary; there are other underlying crimes—murder kidnapping or whatever one likes. 
One of the problems with the definition of “terrorist act” in the original bill that was brought up in the hearings before the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee was that it was very broad. I have also introduced an amendment proposed by Greenpeace during the select committee process to amend the provision where someone could be deemed to have committed a terrorist act if he or she caused serious disruption of an infrastructure facility in a way likely to endanger human life—that is if he or she did not have any intention whatsoever of endangering human life; it could have been just some non-violent act of disruptive civil disobedience. The Greenpeace suggestion which I have incorporated in my Supplementary Order Paper is that there has to be an intention to endanger human life. So I am trying to tighten up the definition of a “terrorist act” to meet the real situation that most people would accept—anything that is really terrorist has to intentionally endanger human life. I hope members will support that part of my Supplementary Order Paper. 
Another part of Supplementary Order Paper 158 is to omit clause 7 because it repeals section 8(2) of the original Act. Section 8(2) provides that if funds that end up somewhere in relation to a terrorist group or its offshoots were intended for the purpose of advocating democratic government or the protection of human rights then that is a defence. That should remain a defence particularly as New Zealanders have a long history of supporting anti-apartheid groups overseas. Nelson Mandela was clearly a leader of a terrorist organisation as defined in this Act; there were terrorist elements in the African National Congress but New Zealanders gave money to it. Under this bill they would automatically by giving money to Hamas or whatever be deemed to be financing terrorism. Even if the money was meant for Hamas’ social programmes in Gaza they would be in a situation similar to those—[ 
Interruption 
] If New Zealanders were giving money to a Hamas group that was trying to establish an independent Palestinian State politically—that is they did not have any intent of funding violence—they could be caught under the provision in this bill which is why I think we have to go back to section 8(2) of the original Act under which there was a defence if people gave the money for the purpose of advocating democratic government or the protection of human rights. 
I also have a provision on Supplementary Order Paper 158 that clause 12 be omitted. Under clause 12 participation in a terrorist group offence which carries a heavy penalty of up to 14 years means that a person can be deemed to be part of that group even if he or she did not really have knowledge that that group was a terrorist one. The bill introduces a provision of recklessness which I think loosens it very much. It could lead to many people who are on the fringes of a particular group that might engage in some criminal activity being caught. 
The Green Party has several amendments and the other amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 158 is to allow for a further review of the original Terrorism Suppression Act.