Prebble Richard: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21616] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak to the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2). Let me say immediately that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee is one of the select committees that the ACT party is not on; being a party of nine members we are not able to be on every committee. Therefore we are forced to listen to the debate and to make up our minds. 
Let me just make a few observations to the House. The first is that we have to decide as a country whether we are supporting the United Nations resolutions on terrorism. It is my understanding that New Zealand First and the Green Party are strong supporters of the United Nations. I suspect that the ACT party probably has the most doubts about that organisation but it appears to me looking at the issue as it faces the world that one is forced to line up and support the United Nations. It is interesting when one makes that observation— 
Dail Jones 
: If there is such a resolution. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Is the member suggesting that the Security Council has somehow produced this list—[ 
Interruption 
] A submission has come to us from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I quote from the report of the member’s own select committee: “Proposed section 8(2A) implements NZ’s international legal obligations under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373.” We need to meet those obligations. That is the statement that the select committee has made to the House and I have no reason to suppose that it is not correct. 
It is interesting to note—[ 
Interruption 
] The member is interjecting on me and I am trying to debate the matter seriously. It is interesting to note that the range of nations that have supported this matter is extraordinarily wide. Countries at the United Nations that one would expect to support terrorism have in fact supported Resolution 1373 and that is because I think most nations actually realise that terrorism is a very evil thing and that we need to take international action against it. From that point of view it would appear to me that this House really has no choice but to support the United Nations resolution. 
The next question we come to is whether we should because somebody might want to give money to the Tamil Tigers for very laudable reasons decide not to support a clause that states that it is now an offence to give money to a terrorist organisation. I am staggered that New Zealand First has come up with opposition to that clause. Indeed it is interesting to know what goes on in New Zealand First caucus meetings because New Zealand First on a previous bill—I will not go into it—just made a general rave against foreigners and now apparently it is making a general rave against foreigners except the Tamil Tigers. I find that really quite extraordinary. This clause is saying that one cannot give money to an organisation that supports terrorism just because it also does charitable actions. That is a well-known characteristic of many terrorist organisations—that on the one hand they do terrorism and on the other hand they carry out good works because of course they are trying to win public support. But that is not a reason for this House to agree to people giving money to them. 
Let me then turn to the matter of substance that I think the honourable member was raising and that is the fear that ordinary New Zealanders who give money to street collections somehow will be caught up by this clause. Well I was not on the select committee so I am looking at it slightly more objectively. I say “Get real!”. To get a prosecution under new section 8(2A) in clause 4—and Mr Jones must know this; he was a reasonably competent lawyer—will be very very difficult. Indeed one could put up an argument that it is a show clause and I am afraid I actually do believe that. It is a clause to show the rest of the world that we are doing our bit but who seriously thinks anyone will get home on it in court? 
Let me read new section 8(2A) because that is what I have been forced to do: “A person commits an offence who directly or indirectly wilfully”—that means the person actually meant to do it—“and without lawful justification”—we got that out—“or reasonable excuse”—we have two more reasons to give the court—“provides or collects funds intending that they benefit or knowing that they will benefit an entity that the person knows is an entity that carries out or participates in the carrying out of 1 or more terrorist acts.” Realistically to get home on that in court one needs someone to put an advertisement in the newspaper saying: “Support the Tamil Tigers. They are a worthy cause. Send money to Box …”. One would have to do something almost as blatant as that. 
Then we have to ask ourselves whether it is worth passing such a provision. It probably is because if we did not have such a law there would be some people who would organise collections of that sort. But all we are going to do is stop those people who openly collect for terrorist organisations. Under this clause we certainly will not be able to stop those people who are secretly collecting. 
I say to the New Zealand First Party and to the Greens that there may be some political advantage in their opposing this clause but I am not sure whether I can see it. I cannot see the point in criticising the Government for not going any further because although the world has a problem when I look realistically at New Zealand I have some difficulty in believing we have. I will give just one simple example. We all at least twice a week go through the security checks at our domestic airports. They cost New Zealand multimillions of dollars. Tens of thousands of Swiss army knives have been lost and other bits and pieces of jewellery. We have not found a single terrorist and we cannot really be serious about it because a suicide bomber could put his or her luggage—which is not checked—on the aeroplane and fly off to whatever oblivion he or she wants to go to. Why are we doing it? We are doing it to play our part in the international fight against terrorism. 
So having expressed my scepticism that this measure will do much good and having looked at it as a responsible parliamentarian it appears to me we really do not have any choice except to pass it. It is certainly not helpful to suggest that innocent New Zealanders will be caught up in this measure. Let us get real. I think we have no choice but to pass this measure. The ACT party accordingly will vote for it.