Robson Matt: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Second Reading 
Robson Matt: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9153] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 This bill will be voted for by the Progressives but it could well behove this Parliament to listen closely to the analysis of Keith Locke and the Green Party instead of mounting the usual attack on Mr Locke for favouring terrorism. That attack is cowardly on the part of many people in this House. I personally know that Keith Locke is not and never has been a supporter of terrorism. The points that he brought up are very important. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Point of order— 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: If I could anticipate the member’s point I say that I did not mean to call anybody a coward. I withdraw and apologise if I suggested that any member was a coward. I say that the attack is unwise if people take that line. 
The points that Mr Locke brought up are very important. If we are to bring in legislation where there are stronger powers we need as a Parliament to put that legislation through the test of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—the protection of the presumption of innocence—and to ensure that untrammelled power is not given. 
I can say that I personally have wrestled with this bill. I have come down in favour of passing the bill and I have advised the Progressives to come down in favour of passing it. But in this regard we will have a look at where it can be strengthened. There are two amendments in particular that I will be looking to in order to seek support for. One amendment is on the use of tracking devices. The Progressives support the proposal of the Privacy Commissioner that the offence of using a tracking device without authorisation or consent be included in this bill. 
 Secondly a tracking device can be used by one of the State authorities without a warrant for up to 72 hours before getting approval. I believe it is important to amend that provision to make it 24 hours and not to give that 72-hour period. I believe that 24 hours for an unauthorised warrant is a reasonable time to allow the authorities to carry out what they want to do. 
To return to my initial point I think it is unwise—because viewpoints have been brought up by Mr Locke on behalf of the Green Party—to follow through and say that Mr Locke is pro-terrorist or that he does not take account of the dangers New Zealand has faced because it really ducks the real arguments and becomes an ad hominem argument. 
We should cast our minds back to a very similar period when there were proposals to rush through legislation on the basis that there was a great danger—that was the cold war period. I disagree with Peter Dunne that we have not had periods in New Zealand history where we have encroached on civil liberties. Of course the framework within New Zealand particularly after the 19th century has been a parliamentary democracy. Therefore fundamental rights have been allowed. Nevertheless a parliamentary democracy has high standards—or should have high standards—and there have been many periods in our history where we have fallen below those standards. I will point to some areas now where we are falling below the standards of upholding the presumption of innocence and of the full gamut of rights being provided to everybody no matter who they are within New Zealand’s jurisdiction. 
In the 19th century there was a wholesale trammelling of rights. We had a Suppression of Rebellion Act which was used against Maori people who were legitimately defending their rights and we are now going through and recognising that they were standing up for rights that were being pounced upon or abrogated. 
Stephen Franks 
: They were rebels. 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: They were classed as rebels exactly. They were defending rights that were being breached and since that time that has been recognised. That is one example from the 19th century. 
If we move to the period of the First World War we treated conscientious objectors abominably in New Zealand and violated their rights—rights that are now recognised in any civilised society. We did exactly the same in the Second World War when there were a number of breaches of the civil rights of New Zealand citizens. In the cold war period the atmosphere of repression generated in New Zealand harmed many people’s lives in areas such as promotion and in those people being able to exercise their full rights. One has only to think of the type of persecution that went on with Bill Sutch to realise that we did that in New Zealand. We have only to look at the excesses of the Security Intelligence Service so recently in the case of Choudhry and Small in Christchurch to know that in New Zealand society we let loose agencies that breach our rights as citizens. In New Zealand we are not squeaky clean. I think it is an important part of this discussion as we go through the Committee stage to look at where we should strengthen the bill in terms of protecting the legal rights of New Zealanders which in the end are everybody’s legal rights. 
On the cold war analogy I can say that when I first came to New Zealand I probably caught as a teenager the end of the cold war period. I can remember the atmosphere that was engendered. If anybody gave any criticism of New Zealand society then that person was usually told to go back to Russia. My criticisms were usually just that the All Blacks could not play football very well and I would be told to go back to Russia. The intolerant and intimidating atmosphere created in the cold war is being generated by conservative parties now about terrorism. They have a broad blanket approach to what terrorism is and if we are not careful then we will go into those areas of civil liberties that are so important to all of us and use terrorism as the excuse for passing legislation that is actually aimed at suppressing individual rights. 
In this bill through the committee processes we have already tightened up the definition of what is a legal strike and what are legal protest activities so they are not confused with any criminal activities. I agree in the main with Professor Matthew Palmer’s criticism that we have sufficient powers to detect wrongdoing—whether it is classed as purely criminal or terrorist criminal—in the criminal legislation that we have. Biosecurity is the only area in which I think we need to take these extra steps. That is the one area in which I think it does not harm us to take the extra steps suggested. But in the main without this bill if anybody plans a terrorist act in New Zealand then I think the authorities have sufficient powers under the legislation that we have now to undertake surveillance and investigation and they have the power to arrest people. It does not matter if people say they are carrying out acts because they are members of a particular organisation and that these are their ideological beliefs or if they have a purely mercenary criminal reason for doing it. 
In the House I have always been impressed when we have brought in legislation that increases police powers that it has been former police officers who have warned us that we often do not need the extra powers. I remember that Ross Meurant a former police inspector did so as a member of the National Party. I remember that the Hon Clem Simich who has police experience raised questions on whether we needed extra police powers. I remember that Sir Douglas Graham also gave the same warnings on the increase of police powers. 
The Ahmed Zaoui case is one in New Zealand where the question of terrorism has already led us to breach rights. There is no doubt about it. I have had talks with police in New Zealand about the threat assessment that was issued—which landed Zaoui in maximum security at Paremoremo—and they admitted that their threat assessment was a flawed document and inaccurate. The man has been framed. When he was in custody and before lawyers were able to deal with him he was questioned for hours by the Security Intelligence Service and the police without any warning that he could have a lawyer with him or being told what his rights were. 
At our border now customs are violating the rights of New Zealand citizens and residents. Muslim New Zealanders—particularly if they are originally from Iraq—or if they are Sikh are being stopped and detained up to 2 or 3 hours. There are three or four cases which I have put to Ministers now where people have been stopped and questioned and have never been told of their right to ask for a lawyer and that they do not have to answer questions. They are New Zealand citizens on New Zealand soil and that right was breached. 
My warning is that the bill is to some extent window dressing which we need on the international stage. A lot of it is unnecessary and we have the law now to enforce detection of wrongdoing whether criminal or terrorist. On balance there are protections in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but we need to look closely at the amendments. We should take seriously any objections or thoughts that are put forward in Parliament that ask whether the bill is necessary because it is possibly breaching a right particularly the presumption of innocence.