Harawira Hone: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Harawira Hone: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12816] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Chairman. Tenatatou katoa e te Whare. When I was listening to Dr Mapp talk about being in bed and listening to the radio it reminded me of a book that I was reading when I was doing bed and breakfast at Mount Eden Prison. The book was called  
Watch for Me on the Mountain 
 and it was about the rebellion of Geronimo and his people against the rampaging racist terrorists of the United States 7th Cavalry operating under a clear mandate from their masters in Washington to crush everything that stood in the way of the land-hungry gold-maddened settlers and to round up hunt down and kill where necessary any natives who stood in their way. 
Everyone in this Chamber knows the saying “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.”—such were the sentiments of the United States just a couple of hundred years ago. So when I think about this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill that too is where my understanding of terrorism comes from. I reckon we could update that “dead Indian” threat to read “The only good sand-nigger is a dead sand-nigger.” to explain the United States’ current misbegotten crusade in Iraq. It is misbegotten because it is a military campaign born out of the union of the lies about the weapons of mass destruction that were never found and the link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein that was never proved. And yes I call it a crusade because it was a venture of Christian paranoia against Islam—a task that “Richard the Lion Breath” and his foolish followers could not achieve hundreds of years ago and a failure that George Bush with all his technological superiority is doomed to repeat. So when I think of this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill that too is where my understanding of terrorism comes from. 
Now we hear that the United States has finally charged some poor dumb Aussie David Hicks as its first Guantánamo “war on terror” detainee. An Australian for heaven’s sake! Six years after 9/11 is this the result of billions of dollars of US intelligence spent on securing a conviction to justify its war in Afghanistan? An Australian? Heaven forbid that we should be connected in any way with the mind-numbing stupidity and pointlessness of a process that has failed so spectacularly that after 6 years all that it could come up with was the so-called confession from an Australian charged with providing material support. Seriously hands up all those in this Chamber who believe that that confession was entered into freely and willingly. So when I think of this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill that too is where my understanding of terrorism comes from. 
And I recall too a very personal connection to South Africa. One brother member of the African National Congress Andrew Moletsane who fled the terror in his own homeland came to our home in Otara in South Auckland to give testimony about the terror being imposed by the apartheid regime of South Africa. A few years later he was hunted down and murdered in Botswana by one of Botha’s goon squads. So when I think of this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill that too is where my understanding of terrorism comes from. 
Bringing it back to our local situation I point out that the arrest and detention without bail of 17 individuals on the grounds that they were planning terrorist attacks against political targets in this country represents a step towards the Guantánamo-isation of national security policy in this country at least as it applies to political dissent. Like the Cuban soil occupied by the United States military base it seems that the normal rules of legal rights and due process apparently do not apply to political extremists. Those detained have been remanded without bail for weeks on firearms charges and with all information about their cases suppressed which assumes that the clear and present danger to national security and public safety posed by these individuals is so great that they are denied the basic right to swift justice and the presumption of innocence reserved to all others—and I will stay right away from mentioning any particular case before the court. 
Do the Urewera 17 constitute a viable terrorist threat and were they engaged in a terrorist conspiracy? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would have to say at this point that Mr Harawira has definitely strayed into cases that are currently before the court and is making specific statements about them. I think you know the rule on that about the separation of powers. This is not like other cases that his colleagues were referring to which did not result in charges. These cases did. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairperson I would willingly stand down from speaking about any particular case if Mr Mapp could say which case it was. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: You see the member by referring to them collectively is still referring to any particular case so he cannot actually go down that road. He cannot refer to them collectively. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairperson I understand the issue about matters being sub judice but in this situation I am not speaking about a particular case at all. I have not mentioned the name of one person who has been arrested; nor have I mentioned the details of any one of the cases currently being prosecuted by the police. What I am talking about is the general arrest of people in New Zealand—no names. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am really cautioning the member because we have to be very careful about this with the issue being sub judice. It might be in the member’s interests to come back to the general purpose of the bill and to try to relate his comments around that without involving people collectively. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: From what has surfaced in the public record the case for terrorism in respect of those arrested to date is debatable. Unlike guerrilla organisations or terrorist organisations operated by ideologically committed militants pursuing common political causes those who have been detained are from all over this country and are not practising common operational security. I am talking here in terms of terrorist organisations rather than of a particular case that is before the court. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is treading on very dangerous ground. He should just get on with his speech. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Some of those people emailed texted and phone-called with apparent abandon including so-called recruitment efforts of unaffiliated individuals. They did not have safe houses and did not move constantly to avoid apprehension. They did not hide their bush camps which were a matter of local knowledge. They did not kill or recruit the unaffiliated people who— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is starting to bring individuals into it now and he cannot actually do that under law sub judice. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You anticipated my point of order. At this point the speaker is definitely speaking about allegations facts and circumstances relating to these various charges which have not been heard by a court as yet. I think it is a breach of the Standing Orders to do so and I ask that you bring the member back to the bill and to issues that are not before the courts. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairperson I want to comment on what the previous speaker just said. All the information in respect of the charges themselves has actually been suppressed by the court. All the information to which I am referring has been garnered from media reports and not from the cases themselves. If they are already a matter of media speculation then they are surely available to us to speak to in this Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I advise the member that he cannot actually refer to anything that has been suppressed. I want him to look at Standing Order 111 “Matters awaiting judicial decision” which states: “Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the House to legislate on any matter matters awaiting or under adjudication in any court of record may not be referred to—” and it gives a number of cases. In this case “in any debate” applies. So the member really needs to refer directly to the bill and steer clear of the course he is going down now. Otherwise we will have to move on. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek some clarification. My colleague Mr Harawira has referred to issues that have been published by the media. Can I take it that those issues that have been put out in the media already are also under that ruling? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If they relate to any specific charges yes. 
Eric Roy 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It may be of some help to the Committee to know that there is quite a suite of Speakers’ rulings in regard to this matter. I think it might be helpful if members looked at Speaker’s ruling 28/6 which refers quite clearly to issues where there could be “real or substantial danger of prejudice to the case” and if you Mr Chairman have listened to the debate that has been promoted by Mr Harawira you will know that he has made quite clear what his intentions are. So can I suggest that broadly speaking it is out of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: On that point too if I could advise the honourable member Speaker’s ruling 27/2 states: “The sub judice rule is not intended to inhibit members discussing the law in general but a particular case before the court may not be referred to. The House is not in the same position as the media when reporting cases.” 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Again I just seek some clarification. The Standing Orders do apply in respect of I understand the rules and regulations as bound by the House. Mr Locke referred earlier to comments made by the Prime Minister that according to him at least might prejudice the outcome of the particular cases we talked about. Can I ask whether there is any correlation in respect of the Prime Minister’s comments about those people versus the discussion in the Committee at this point in time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Again I advise the member that members cannot refer to any cases specifically before the court. That is the situation we now find ourselves in. There is no reason why Mr Harawira should not continue his speech but he cannot go down the same track as he is now because he is referring to a case specifically before the courts and we cannot do that. We are not a newspaper. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Given the hypothetical case of a number of people being arrested and charged under the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill it seems as if that bill is being invoked even though it was originally oriented towards countering the support for or financing of foreign terrorist groups by New Zealanders and not towards arresting domestic militants in pursuing anti – status quo political agendas. In that regard the prediction of Maori activists at the time the Terrorism Suppression Act was passed in 2002 that they would eventually be targeted has come to pass sooner rather than later. 
Although hypothetically some sectors of the community might argue that it is better to be safe than sorry and that perhaps it is appropriate that the police act in a preventive capacity that still begs the question of why people are being held without bail on—hypothetically of course—minor firearms offences while additional charges are being decided against them. In reality gangsters rapists and child-murderers can be bailed so why cannot those who might hypothetically be held only on firearms charges? 
It is incumbent upon the Government the judiciary and the police to immediately outline the legal grounds on which such a group might hypothetically be held. Otherwise the impression could be left that this country is on the slippery slope towards a Guantánamo approach to political dissent—in spite of its very different strategic and geopolitical position—with people being detained on minor charges and on suspicion of something worse while the authorities decide what to do with them. 
In dictatorships the denial of legal rights to those suspected of terrorism is of little concern; in liberal democracies like the one we say we practise as having and particularly in small open democracies with a history of political tolerance and non-violent protest it is a troubling development. In dictatorships security overrides human rights; in democracies civil liberties are expected to be the priority with domestic security operations constrained by notions of due process and full disclosure regardless of the ideological persuasion of those who might—hypothetically—be defendants. The threat of terrorism does not alter that basic premise. The reaction to any hypothetical arrests suggests that the public is right to be sceptical of police motivation and old wounds are likely to be reopened as a consequence of those actions. If for no other reason than these the police need to make a compelling case make it soon or let them all go. Thank you very much. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to.