Yates Dianne: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
Yates Dianne: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12993] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I wish to continue from where I left off in discussing the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. I point out to the House that we are discussing the amendment bill; we are not discussing the substantive Act which was the Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002. I thank those who made submissions on the amendment bill. There were 35 submissions. The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee heard 14 of those submissions and I thank the staff and all those who worked on this particular amending legislation. 
However I want to refer back to the 2002 Act and the report back to the House because I recently heard it said on the radio that the committee that dealt with the 2002 Act was not a robust one. I point out that there was a 19-page report back to the House on that original Act. Unlike the report on the amendment bill which has a minority view from the Green Party and a minority view from the National Party that report had no minority view. The original substantive Act when it came back to the House had no minority views and no dissenting opinions. The original Act went through unanimously in its report back to the House. I just mention that in relation to some of the comments I have heard about the original Act—the substantive Act—in the media recently. 
I point out that we are discussing the amendment bill which is about financing terrorism. The bill is about the conventions around nuclear material and nuclear terrorism and more particularly it is about the international aspect of the designations of United Nations - listed terrorist entities. The reason for this amendment bill is that it has to be passed by 1 December in order to deal with the large number of designations that will lapse at the end of that month. So we are dealing strictly with the amending legislation although the debate has been robust and wide ranging. 
I also point out that our select committee deals a great deal with United Nations treaties and international treaties and the bringing of these into New Zealand law. It is very difficult to do that and the committee goes to great lengths to examine the balance between what affects New Zealand citizens—and this is about New Zealand being an international citizen—and New Zealand sovereignty. I can say from reading both report-backs to the House that both select committees were robust—far from lazy—and that the reports are comprehensive robust and very informative. 
I further point out that the select committee and members of all parties were very very careful to make sure that on the one hand we dealt very carefully with the safety of New Zealand citizens and the security measures around that safety and on the other hand we considered very very carefully the preservation of freedom of speech freedom of assembly freedom of association democracy and transparency and civil liberties. In reading the report-backs to the House we find that those terms are mentioned in the reports as is the consideration the committees gave to those issues and to the submissions that discussed those issues. 
Nothing in these bills was treated lightly—I have heard a contrary view in some comments from the media—and the members from all parties on the committee as I said especially in respect of the amending legislation gave their opinions very carefully. In the amendment bill we are discussing today there were minority views from the National Party and the Green Party. So when I hear comments on the reports of the substantive Act in 2002 that the committee was lazy I think those comments are unfounded because in the initial hearing there was a 19-page report with no minority views from any party; the report was unanimous. 
Things have changed from then to now but I think we have to be very very careful of what we say about former committees former members of committees and chairs of those committees. Members of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee did a considerable job of work examined the submitters carefully and went to great pains to produce a report to the House that reflected the opinion of that committee and the various opinions within the committee. I think the report was a fair one. 
In commenting as the chair of the committee on its work I thank committee members for the work they have done and for the consideration they gave to the issues. The issues were not considered without care and appreciation for the values of New Zealand citizens the protection of New Zealand citizens and the protection as I have said of freedom of speech freedom of association and civil liberties in New Zealand.