Carter David: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Carter David: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21624] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I rise with pleasure to speak on the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2). The National Party will be working with the Labour Party to see that this legislation is passed and passed quickly for reasons I will outline shortly. This bill brings back memories—for me anyway—of the morning of September 11 2001 when we all woke and watched on our TV screens images of that disaster unfolding in New York. I am reminded of the words uttered by the then Prime Minister Helen Clark a couple of months before when she described New Zealand as being in a benign strategic environment. Those words have proven to be particularly foolish as the events of September 11 showed us in very graphic fashion. September 11 showed that the threat of terrorism is now with us forever and therefore it has become incumbent on countries like New Zealand to pass legislation and pass it quickly to cope with those sorts of issues. 
I want to comment first of all on Part 2. The reason we are here now debating this legislation under urgency is that the principal Act apparently and for a reason unknown to me listed the various terrorist organisations and then left that list to expire 3 years after the passing of the principal Act. It expires apparently in October this year so there is clearly some urgency to make sure that that list is continued and extended beyond October this year. I take the opportunity to thank the Government for getting this legislation out of the way before the general election so that the incoming National Government will have one less piece of legislation to deal with immediately after the election—which I now pick to take place about the middle of September. We will be busy tidying up a lot of the other messes created by the Labour Government and we do not want to have to deal with the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) at that stage. So in that regard we completely support the legislation. 
I have been fascinated in this debate having sat here for the last couple of hours to find that on this occasion the New Zealand First Party is siding with the Greens in criticising the legislation. But if I understand Dail Jones correctly he is saying that having criticised the legislation and having tabled in the House a minority report on it New Zealand First will vote for the legislation. 
Dail Jones 
: That’s correct. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I am pleased I have got that right because the logic did mystify me to say the least. New Zealand First is railing against migrants mainly because of their colour and suggesting that most of them are terrorists but when we have legislation aimed at making sure we protect New Zealand from terrorists Winston Peters and his bunch of merry men come into the House and criticise that legislation. New Zealand First has presented a minority report criticising legislation that deals with terrorism and terrorist groups. Then at the end of the day it decides to vote for that legislation. As I said that attitude by New Zealand First on this particular occasion—not on every occasion—is certainly mystifying to say the least. 
I turn to the comments of the Green member Keith Locke. In going back through the records to when the principal Act was passed I note that the Greens also voted against the legislation on that occasion. Once again we have terrorism suppression legislation—the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2)—and again the Green member Keith Locke tells the House that he will vote against legislation that is designed to protect New Zealand against terrorism. Again I listened with great interest to his explanation. I am one of those members who is quite prepared to give Keith Locke the time in the House to quietly explain his point of view. To summarise his argument—and I will attempt to do this fairly—he said that he cannot support the bill because it does not deliver due process to people who may be accused of terrorism. I ask Mr Keith Locke to think about the people in the twin towers and what due process was ever given to them. I say to Mr Locke that 3000 absolutely innocent people died in that event. They never had a chance to be given any due process by those wicked wicked terrorists. In supporting this legislation I say to Mr Locke that it is that event I recall. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: You trivialise it by the way you talk about it. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Steve Maharey says I trivialise it but I say to him that I do not. It was the most dramatic event that I have ever witnessed in my life. Mr Maharey might find that funny but I do not. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: You’re pathetic. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I did not enjoy seeing those people leap to their deaths just because that was the most likely decision that they could take. Yet Mr Maharey has the audacity to say today that I trivialised that event. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: You trivialise it. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: That is a shocking thing for Mr Maharey to say. He has made some rather silly comments in his time in the House but that would probably be the most insulting one. It probably has something to do with his explanation of the third way. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: There he goes again—trivialising everything. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I trivialise that member for sure. I do not hesitate to do so. But I say to Mr Maharey that I do not trivialise that event. That is one reason why I have no hesitation in supporting legislation like this. I accept that the Government has to move— 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: Well sit down and vote it through. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Now Mr Maharey says that I should sit down and that I do not have the right to come into this House and make my 10-minute speech. I say to Mr Maharey that if Labour puts the House into urgency we on this side of the House will take every opportunity to debate the legislation and we do not apologise for it. If members of the Government want to sit there right throughout the Committee stage and refuse to take calls and if they then want to take the odd 1-minute call in a Labour slot then they have every right to do that. But Mr Maharey should not criticise National members of Parliament who come here intent on doing their job and delivering their contributions in a debate as important as this one. 
This is critical legislation and as I explained earlier it needs to be passed with some urgency because the principal Act put in an expiry date of 3 years. I have no idea why that happened. I was not involved in the select committee. It would be very interesting if a Labour member took a call about that. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: It was a Labour mistake. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: It probably was a Labour mistake. But I say to Mr Maharey that I am very keen to support the legislation. I just take the opportunity to point out that I find it odd that there are two political parties in the House tonight that do not take the same attitude as the majority of us.