Rich Katherine: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Rich Katherine: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21652] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the debate on the title clause. I too have some serious concerns about some of the comments that have been made by the Green MP because in listening to some of those comments it seems to me that the member is saying that some terrorist activity is OK. The Greens are saying that if they believe in a group’s cause then it is OK if some terrorist activities have been undertaken and that that can be forgiven. So the Tamil Tigers can be forgiven if in the past— 
Keith Locke 
: When did I say that? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Just in his last speech the member said that if an organisation has taken part in some terrorist activity in the past but has gone on to good freedom fighter - style work then that is OK and that all that terrorist activity can be forgiven. I say to Mr Locke that this is my summary of his speech. This is my interpretation of his comments. I find some of those comments very very frightening. It seems to me that if the Greens believe in a cause then terrorist activity undertaken by that cause is OK. If the Greens believe that one has gone on to see the light— 
Keith Locke 
: I wish to make a personal explanation on the accusations that I have in this Parliament supported terrorist acts. It is important to explain—and it may be that the member has listened to but misinterpreted what I said—that the Green Party and I have condemned every terrorist act committed. We never justify killing and murdering civilians kidnapping hijacking or blowing up buildings like on September 11. We never do that whatsoever. The distinction that we have tried to make and that I have tried to make in Parliament today is that even though organisations like Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress or the Tamil Tigers have committed terrorist acts in the past—acts that we condemn and will continue to condemn—that does not necessarily mean we want to smash or ban the African National Congress or those who support it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I just want to remind that member that it is a personal statement. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I am none the wiser as a result of that contribution. It still seems to me that if a group has been involved in some terrorist activity in the past and that if that group goes on to rejuvenate itself and see the error of its ways then that terrorist activity is somehow overlooked and the organisation is then accepted by the Greens. 
We cannot get into a situation whereby we look at the legitimacy of each and every cause because we will all debate that and have different views—well the majority of the House will have the same view. But the Greens I am sure can go through those 420 groups on the list and start to debate whether the causes are valid or should be supported. 
 I do not think we have the luxury of doing that over a period of time so I find some of the comments that have been made by the Greens frightening and I think that New Zealanders who are listening should be concerned by some of their comments because potentially that party could form part of a new Government. When we hear that kind of thinking it should be very frightening to people. 
I am still not 100 percent comfortable with parts of this bill because I am unsure about whether it will achieve what it intends to achieve. It is very clear that if people send money to a group that they know is involved in terrorist activities that is wrong. If they send money to a group that even potentially might be involved in terrorist activity that is also wrong. However this bill says that groups have to be already carrying out or participating in terrorist activities and we know from history that some groups are set up specifically to do things in the future so then those groups will not be captured by this legislation because they are not already carrying out or participating in terrorist activity. They intend to do so in the future which is why they are raising money but technically under this bill we will capture only the groups that have already carried out one or more terrorist acts. So I am concerned that that part of the bill will not apply to groups that have been set up specifically to undertake terrorist activity in the future. 
A whole range of activities have been raised by this bill. Our side supports it and we think that it is important we do more to stamp out terrorism and to ensure that over a period of time we have a good working system that allows terrorist groups to be identified. 
I have one other concern on which the Minister might perhaps like to take a call to explain. I am unsure why the expiry of the designation is after 3 years and why it is automatic in this legislation as opposed to being part of a conscious managed process where names are taken off the list.