Yates Dianne: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Yates Dianne: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8499] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill and to say that we look forward to it coming to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. I thank the member opposite for his support of the bill and I also thank the committee members for the work they did on the review. As has been admitted before the original legislation was passed in response to the events of September 11 and we are now looking at more requirements and at the recommendations of the select committee to make amendments. I know that the select committee will examine this bill very very carefully because we took as much time as we could on the review and we will be looking at the provisions with much less constraint of time than when the matter came before the committee previously. 
One of the issues brought out is always the balance between protecting the people of New Zealand—protecting us from terrorism protecting us from outside influences that affect this country—and at the same time maintaining civil liberties and human rights. To get that balance is always an extremely difficult thing to do especially when international incidents cause alarm and when we realise that we are now part of an increasingly close global community and we have to protect our borders and our people. But as we have said at the same time we have to maintain our high standards of civil rights and civil liberties. 
This is one of those amendments that has one sometimes wanting to turn the page upside down to read because as is stated in the explanatory note: “Currently New Zealand is required to designate United Nations (UN) listed terrorist entities under the Act before they become subject to the provisions of the Act.” So this is a matter around designation and it will take the select committee a considerable amount of time to make sure that we get it right—that we get the wording right and that we get right the intention of the bill. 
The explanatory note continues: “The Bill amends the Act by removing this designation process and applying the provisions of the Act automatically to terrorist entities that are subject to the United Nations (Sanctions) Regulations 2001.” One of the other issues that often comes up in our select committee and that is an issue around here is that yes we are a member of the United Nations and yes we have signed up to our United Nations obligations but we also have to adopt these obligations into our own law. One of the jobs of our select committee is to examine provisions so that when we sign up to treaties and to international obligations we know that they are consistent with our own laws. That is what we are doing in this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill not only in making these amendments but also in looking at some new provisions that have come through through the United Nations. So we have to give a considerable amount of close attention to this particular bill. 
Some people will be concerned that the matter is now going to be decided by the Prime Minister rather than the High Court and that is an issue we will have to look at. No doubt we will have a number of submissions to the committee from people who think that way. It is a matter of the committee calling for submissions in the usual way and looking very carefully at the opinions of those submissions. This legislation is not something that I think the New Zealand public will get wildly excited about. It tends to be those people who are interested in international law and in the finer details of that law who make submissions on this type of bill. 
But something that is important to all of us is the matter of which organisations—as Mr McCully says—are on that list. It affects us as people but it is not something that people generally get their heads around—except of course when they are travelling and concerned or when there is an international incident particularly when it is close to us. Then people suddenly say: “My goodness could that happen here?” “Are those people here?” or “How does that affect us?”. So once again I thank the select committee for the good work that was done in the review—as I have said there was a time constraint—and we look forward to being able to look more closely at the bill through this new process. 
We also note that there are new developments and some new penalties and the committee will be looking at those very carefully as well. If there are loopholes or inconsistencies I know that the committee with the expertise of those on the committee and those who have worked on this issue previously—those who were part of the review—will be very clear about examining the process. When I listened to the debate I somehow thought that we had had this debate before. Yes we have but I am pleased that the Minister has taken heed not only of the select committee’s review but also in looking to update the legislation in terms of changes in the United Nations and changes to our international obligations. 
As has been said the amendments to the Act will make changes that are significant—changes that the select committee and no doubt the submitters will be keen to examine in great detail. I thank the members of the select committee for the attention given. We have on our committee a considerable amount of expertise in these areas and I am sure that members are looking forward both to examining the clauses in detail and also to asking a number of questions in order to clear up matters before this bill comes back to the House. I thank the Attorney-General for his presentation of this bill and I thank members opposite for their support at this first reading stage. The committee looks forward to examining in greater detail the provisions of the bill.