Dunne Peter: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dunne Peter: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2007. Volume:643;Page:12684. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak in support of the second reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill and I want to echo some of the comments made by Jill Pettis the member who has just resumed her seat. I have been appalled in recent days to see the linkages made by some groups between recent police events and the likely imminent appearance of this bill before the House. The suggestion that any Government of New Zealand would conspire with the police to arrest significant numbers of New Zealanders simply to create a climate that made the passage of a particular piece of legislation desirable was not even what happened back in 1951—the heyday of those sorts of things—and it certainly would not happen today. I am appalled that there are groups in our community that have sought to play the conspiracy card the way they have done over recent times. 
Ron Mark 
: Loonies. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: My colleague to my right says “loonies.” I would probably not use that word but I would not disagree with his use of it in respect of at least some of those people. Their actions are not only inaccurate in terms of the current situation but they completely ignore the history of this legislation. 
I will take a moment or two to share with the House what has actually happened here. In the wake of the atrocities in the United States in September 2001 the Government passed a Terrorism Suppression Act in 2002. At that time the Government indicated that certain provisions of that Act would need to be reviewed by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee during the life of the 2002-05 Parliament to put in place more permanent legislative provisions in respect of those issues. During that Parliament I was the chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that undertook the review that led to this bill which when it is passed will be known as the Terrorism Suppression Act 2007. 
The process has therefore been a very long one. The select committee in the 2002-05 period when it undertook the review sought submissions from people on the way in which the previous legislation—the 2002 Act—was working. Then as a result of those submissions the committee made a report to this House and to the Government of the day that eventually appeared as this legislation which I note was sent to a select committee in March of this year. That select committee received some 35 submissions 14 of which were heard orally. In addition evidence was provided by the Ministry of Justice the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Crown Law Office. Everyone who has had a legitimate interest in this legislation and in any imposition it might make on their human or democratic rights has had not one but at least two opportunities to be heard to state their concerns and to have those concerns heard by two different foreign affairs defence and trade committees and two different Parliaments prior to this legislation emerging in the House today. 
When one looks at the scope of this bill one sees that it deals with a number of very significant areas. It talks about the designations of United Nations - listed terrorism entities. It talks about the extensions of national designations—those designations that might apply to national organisations. It talks about a freezing of assets and forfeiture regime new offences being instituted involving nuclear material and the use of classified security information in court. It also brings into the principal Act a significant number of international agreements which are referred to in the schedules. 
I think that we have been through a very considered and careful process here. As I said in an earlier debate on one of the earlier pieces of legislation relating to counter-terrorism we will never get it absolutely right—that is the nature of the beast. We have to make our best efforts at the time. In New Zealand there will always be the suspicion that because we are not an immediate terrorist target or a hotbed of international terrorism—despite what some may say about recent events—we can somehow take a more lax attitude than other countries. 
 I submit to the House that whatever the outcome of the recent police activities might be they should serve as a due warning to people that any sense of laxity is in fact misplaced. We are lucky. We are not facing an immediate threat. We are not under risk. But that does not mean we have no need to act responsibly. The whole process since September 11 as far as I can ascertain in respect of New Zealand has been about ensuring that our domestic environment puts in place laws that strike that traditional balance between protecting the rights of the individual to free speech and dissent and ensuring that the security of our nation is not put at undue risk. I see the provisions in this bill as being a further step down the path of providing those protections. 
It is unfortunate that there are some who choose to see—and they are mainly outside this House thankfully—the passage of this legislation as being some sinister plot to try to overtake their liberty and impose fresh limits on their freedom. The reality is that it is too late after a significant terrorist event to say: “If only we’d had legislation in place that would have prevented this. If only we had known of the existence of these organisations. If only we had acted at the appropriate time.” 
In the last couple of years—I cannot remember precisely when but other members may—there was a suggestion in Australia that various nuclear plants of theirs were a target. It seemed extraordinary. It did not eventuate thanks to the vigilance of the Australian police and security services but we should just imagine for a moment what the consequences might have been had those attacks occurred. Now members may well say that that does not apply in New Zealand and that we do not have nuclear facilities in this country. But we do have nuclear material. There are people who are capable of developing such material here and using it for adverse purposes. So I think the provisions in respect of this legislation in so far as they relate to that are important as well. 
I have read with interest the minority view expressed by the Green Party. I have a huge respect for my friend Mr Locke and I know that although there are some issues we do agree on and we work very well and closely together on there are some we disagree on. But I would never doubt for a moment his sincerity or his integrity in pursuing those views. I think it is important that he continues to be an advocate for democratic and human rights even in a climate where perhaps there may be a majority of this House who are inclined to scoff at his views. Having said that however I do not agree with the conclusion that he reaches in his minority report. I think he is taking it too far. I think he is reading too much into the bill in terms of its import but I do believe that it is important that he is there to state the case and I acknowledge his contribution in that regard. 
So I simply reaffirm United Future’s support for this legislation. It is critical. It is important that it be passed and it is part of securing New Zealand’s long-term future. This is not about dealing with contemporary events; this is actually about making sure that some of those events that we might fear never come to pass. As I said before it is simply too late after they have happened to say “if only” and no one in New Zealand would thank this Parliament if it placed our country in that position.