Pettis Jill: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Pettis Jill: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8511] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 First of all—seeing that I am following the ACT speaker—I want to say that this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill is not about the Prime Minister shirking responsibility regardless of who the Prime Minister is. I am not making a partisan statement; I am making a statement of fact because the bill also provides that designations made by the Prime Minister pursuant in particular to Resolution 1373 will continue to expire after 3 years unless they are extended. It is all about having safeguards and this safeguard continues to be appropriate given that designations under this resolution are discretionary and made on New Zealand’s own initiative. However it is also important to say that the bill will replace the role of the High Court in extending those designations. Instead it will be the Prime Minister who will renew a designation if he or she is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the entity being designated continues to be engaged in terrorist activity. 
This bill is a legislative response to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee’s review into the 2002 Terrorism Suppression Act. The select committee identified a number of issues and was thorough. The issues it identified included whether the Act was meeting New Zealand’s international obligations—and we in this House know that New Zealand exhibits a very responsible attitude towards our international obligations and is a responsible member of the international community. I cannot see that that will change nor will this amendment bill change the attitude we all share in New Zealand. After studying the select committee’s report the Government concluded that there were issues that needed a legislative response and the bill contains amendments to bring the 2002 Act up to date with current obligations further developments and international treaties. The original bill was drafted and enacted not long after the September 11 attacks which was a time of shock horror and high emotion and the amendments will make the bill more current. 
When Mr McCully spoke in the debate he gave the impression—whether he intended it or not but I am sure he knew exactly what he was saying—that he would have on the designated list almost anyone who did not look like us. We have to exercise care and caution. There are people who have no intention of harming anyone or destroying property but who could be classified as terrorists if we were not careful. A terrorist can now be someone who for political reasons causes damage to infrastructure and we in New Zealand have experienced that even though we live in a very safe environment. There are those of us who remember the 1981 Springbok Tour very very clearly and some of us know exactly what our views were on that issue and where we stood on it. But there are some people in this House who do not remember where they stood on that issue. I know and remember exactly where I stood on it. Of course it is not very long ago that the  
Rainbow Warrior 
 event occurred. So we do have to exercise care and caution. 
We need to define what constitutes a terrorist act and what is a terrorist. I am sure the select committee will pay very close attention to that because as one of the earlier speakers mentioned yesterday’s terrorists are sometimes today’s heroes. Some of us have been privileged to be in the presence of and to meet people who were previously labelled terrorists. In fact some members of “acceptable society” who made uncharitable comments about those people when they were still outside that society could not wait to have dinner with them when they stepped inside the tent and became acceptable to mainstream society. Again I mention that and I repeat that what constitutes terrorism is different for different people and events that occur can be viewed as terrorist activity in some people’s minds but not in the minds of others. Some of us have seen films of events that could have been described as terrorism when they occurred but may not be described in that way today. The endeavour to eliminate a race of people in my opinion is terrorism but it may not necessarily in the strictest form be described in that way. 
The bill allows the 2002 Act to automatically designate terrorist entities subject to the UN resolutions of 2001. The bill also replaces 3-yearly reviews by the High Court on all designations for terrorist entities with 3-yearly reviews by the Prime Minister but only on non-UN designations. It brings provisions on the freezing of terrorists’ assets and terrorist participation and offending into line with New Zealand’s international obligations—towards which we have a very responsible attitude as I said before. The bill is aimed at amending earlier legislation. The provisions on freezing terrorist activities and offences involving nuclear material are also important and will further ratify New Zealand’s international obligations on terrorism. Loopholes and inconsistencies in the 2002 legislation on terrorist offending need to be amended as well. 
I am confident that the select committee will give this bill its thorough attention and I look forward to it coming back to the House after the committee has concluded its processes. Thank you.