Robson Matt: Third Readings 
Robson Matt: Third Readings 
[Volume:612;Page:9387] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 The Progressives went through this legislation thoroughly with our coalition partner the Labour Party and agreed that it should come to Parliament. We were very keen that it should go through the select committee process as steadily as possible without rush so that it could be scrutinised very carefully. We were in agreement that there was a mischief to look at—that is whether criminal activity that is terrorist activity or illegal drug activity is easier to carry out without this legislation. My opinion which I gave to our Progressive caucus was that on balance we could do without this legislation and that the present Crimes Act was sufficient. That was the view of Matthew Palmer. 
On another level though there is a need to ensure that every loophole is closed and there is a need internationally—for all countries not one just particular country—to show that New Zealand is serious about its laws detecting wrongdoing in terms both of criminal terrorist activity and of drug taking. Also during the select committee process a number of safeguards were put into the legislation. The legislation has clear definitions in respect of the legitimacy of political protest and activity. That is good. It has clear definitions to uphold the right of workers to strike and it has clear safeguards in terms of the judiciary’s oversight. 
The ACT party and the Green Party had a number of amendments that I agreed with and the Progressives were willing to vote for them as further safeguards. In dialogue I had with my colleague Phil Goff we agreed we would look at those amendments. If the ACT party and the Green Party had originally supported the Progressives having a proxy vote when our members had to be away on other business I would have recorded our vote for those amendments. Unfortunately those parties did not support the Progressives’ two members being able to have a proxy vote in the House when they were attending to other business. Last night in relation to drugs I attended a debate between Nandor Tanczos of the Green Party and Jim Anderton on the question of the decriminalisation of cannabis which the Progressives are against and the Green Party is for. So other parliamentary duties called. 
A lot of very good points have been made in terms of the need to be 
watchful of this legislation. I said that in my opinion if there were criminal wrongdoing in terrorist form we were not without weapons right at this moment. The police under the general powers of the Crimes Act and other legislation have the ability to take out warrants and carry out other actions against people who are suspected of wrongdoing. The Security Intelligence Service certainly does. In my opinion the weapons to detect are there. So the warnings of groups that legislation can be misused should be taken seriously. The compromise position that can be taken is to watch this legislation very carefully. Keith Locke has quite rightly in my opinion drawn attention to the misuse of legislation in the case of Ahmed Zaoui. My prediction on that case is that New Zealand will have to do a lot to re-establish its record of upholding the presumption of innocence and it will have to do a lot to uphold its record that it will not misuse terrorism to persecute people who have political positions opposed to terrorism. 
That is why in the third reading speeches on this legislation it is important for parties to have a historical perspective. The Cold War years should warn us of the misuse particularly by conservative parties of popular fears—in the case of the Cold War the misuse of propaganda that the Soviet Union was going to invade our country and that New Zealand was under threat—to undermine political rights in New Zealand. Testimony to that misuse is the 1932 Public Safety Conservation Act which was brought in at a time when unemployed workers in New Zealand and their supporters were protesting about the fact that the Government was worsening their position by not providing them with work and security. It took a 1935 reforming Government a Labour Government under Mickey Joseph Savage—a great Australian who gave his talents to this country—to remedy that situation. 
Darren Hughes 
: And a Catholic. 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: And a Catholic who often did not say his prayers I know. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please come to the present. 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: I was distracted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was 68 years ago. 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: Then in 1951 during a legitimate industrial action— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was 52 years ago. Please come to the question of whether this legislation should be given its third readings. 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: I am Mr Speaker. In terms of this Act the 1951 regulations in building on the 1932 Act made it illegal to give support to workers who were locked out. They lost their freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. That happened in New Zealand and anti-communism was used as the vehicle to do that and to intimidate. That is the danger with Acts like this. I have an assurance from Mr Phil Goff which I accept—he is aware of those historical precedents which is why I was telling the House about my interesting conversation with the Minister on these topics—that this legislation does need to be looked at very carefully. 
The United Future party said—and I am paraphrasing—that it did not want to hear anti-American ideology. Mr Locke in drawing attention to what regimes do is not being anti-American. From Abraham Lincoln through to Martin Luther King there are admirable figures in the history of the United States. But to disagree with a particular regime with its outlook and what it does is not to be anti-American; it is to oppose the most powerful Government in the world if it has a foreign policy that may have an ill effect on New Zealand. I think the warning is apposite that our legislation is not so much driven by the masters in the United Nations—I wish it was—but often is driven by or could be driven by the type of legislation that exists in the United States. I refer to the Patriot Act which is being used to persecute the Muslim population of the United States and to undermine the liberties that the Americans cherish so greatly. 
I point members to an article in the edition of  
Le Monde Diplomatique 
 in the  
Guardian Weekly 
 of October 16 at page 2 where it is pointed out that “the war on Iraq is the culmination of a decade of intense intellectual and political work by a small group of neoconservatives who have united with fundamentalist Christians and militarists in the new imperial coalition that has crystallised under the Bush presidency”. It seems far away but the type of pressure that comes to shape the world for the interests of a very small and powerful clique can come home to New Zealand. That is what we do not want in our legislation. 
This legislation does have some inherent dangers if the authorities misuse it. That is why I support what Keith Locke said about Ahmed Zaoui. I have talked with my colleagues and the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Immigration on some of the dangers that occur from legislation. I believe that in terms of this legislation it is important to keep a very watchful eye on it and as a House to report any misuse of it. Of course if we see good use of it we will support it but we should keep a watchful eye on this legislation.