Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:642;Page:12339] 
1. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What are the names of the United Nations designated groups listed in this country under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 and why have no local groups been listed as a designated terrorist entity? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Close to 500 groups or individuals are designated by the United Nations and consequently designated under the Terrorism Suppression Act. The names are all listed in the  
New Zealand Gazette 
 and are also on the New Zealand Police website. No advice has been received that designation of any local group is justified at this time. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Has the Prime Minister read the 2005 report of the High-level Panel on Threats Challenges and Change which concluded: “The current war on terrorism has in some instances corroded the very values that terrorists target—human rights and the rule of law.” and what rights do citizens have to claim compensation for broken windows school closures kohanga reo closures return trips from Ruatoki to Rotorua to retrieve whanau members who have been released without charge and any other consequences of yesterday’s enforcement actions? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Members of the public who have grievances against the police can take those up with the Police Complaints Authority. The processes are well laid out in that regard. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that the environmental peace and Maori rights movements have a long history of peaceful protests and should not be in any way smeared by association with the alleged acts of violence by one or two individuals? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: New Zealand stands for the right to peaceful protest; many of us in this House have engaged in peaceful protest in the past. Indeed the Terrorism Suppression Act itself is quite specific around that matter. In relation to more recent events—which I presume the member is referring to—we shall see what evidence the police have and what the courts make of that evidence. I am not going to rush to any form of judgment. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is very very quiet at the present time. It was extremely difficult to hear Dr Cullen’s answer and it was also difficult to hear the three questions that have been asked so far. I wonder whether the ear-sets might be turned up a little. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. It was very difficult to hear you Mr Brownlee at the beginning too so there is obviously something wrong with the system. [ 
Interruption 
] I did not mean that to sound the way it did actually! Could someone please turn up the volume. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Prime Minister not agree that given the events of yesterday her Government’s decision to repeal the seditious offences currently on the statute book through the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill was a mistake given specifically that the real intent of those laws is to protect lawful authority against violence? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My understanding is that the reasons why the vast majority of members in the House have voted for the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill is that the kinds of circumstances that are legitimately covered by those offences are adequately covered under other legislation. Of course the police sought search warrants under both arms legislation and the Terrorism Suppression Act. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Prime Minister concerned that young people and teenagers are currently being held in police cells and prisons for extended periods of time for questioning due to warrants issued under the Terrorism Suppression Act and can she absolutely guarantee to the House that they will have their rights upheld be provided with the legal representation they need and be kept physically safe while in police custody? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There is certainly a guarantee that the rights of citizens whatever their age will be upheld during these processes. I should point out to members who may not perhaps be fully cognisant of this fact that the police have to seek warrants under all legislation under which they may lay charges. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Can the Prime Minister provide the estimated cost of this exercise to maintain the year-long surveillance and what justification is there for such invasive action on the freedoms of people? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The second part of that question rushes to judgment. The police are acting on the basis of evidence that they believe is sound. Under certain circumstances the Solicitor-General will need to be satisfied that evidence is sound if charges are laid under the Terrorism Suppression Act. In either case the courts will make the decision. It is not for this House or any member to start deciding what the facts are. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister explain to the House whether the police have actually invoked any provision of the Terrorism Suppression Act and whether the people arrested will be treated any differently under that Act from the way they would be in the normal course of events? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In the latter case no. The police as I have indicated have sought warrants under the Terrorism Suppression Act because in their view there is the possibility that charges may be laid under that Act. If they had not sought warrants for search in relation to that Act they could not lay such charges. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that our very democracy has been established through a long process of peaceful protest in which she herself has been involved on occasion and that we need to be very careful that any action taken under the Terrorism Suppression Act or criminal law or any Government statement does not undermine our important right to disagree with the State? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Those rights are fundamental to a democracy and one of the problems that many democracies face around the world is balancing the exercise of those rights and protecting them properly in an age of international terrorism. I would have to say that I think it is going slightly far to say that our entire democracy has been created on the basis of peaceful protest. That would require a significant rewriting of New Zealand’s history. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Has the Prime Minister read the comments of Judge Rota who noted “the uncertainty of the charges” and secondly “scant information before the court” when individuals were brought before the Rotorua District Court yesterday and what confidence can any member of the public have that this situation is not just a politically contrived exercise to demonstrate— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but the member obviously did not hear my ruling. He is now straying into matters that are sub judice. There are matters before the court. If the member would like to reconsider his question to bring it within the Standing Orders that is perfectly all right. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Has the Prime Minister read the comments of Judge Rota who noted “the uncertainty of the charges” and “scant information before the court”— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think that question is out of order. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. As the Speaker knows I am still a new member of Parliament despite having been here for 2 years. Can I have one more shot at that question without that bit? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes the member may but the member must abide by the sub judice rule and the way it is applied in this House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. From just listening to the question and not in any way disputing your ruling I think it might help the member if you gave him a little bit of guidance on where he might go with this. It seems to me that the application as we are hearing it today is somewhat narrow. That is your prerogative but it would help the member I think to know the parameters and where he can take the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. Members cannot refer to matters that are already before the courts. The member was explicitly referring to those matters. But by all means he can have another go. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Would the Prime Minister be concerned about some of the allegations before the court in Rotorua and what confidence can any member of the public have that this situation is not a politically contrived exercise to demonstrate the impact of the Terrorism Suppression Act? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think it is fair to say that the Prime Minister would be concerned at any allegations in relation either to arms offences or to the Terrorism Suppression Act. These matters have been dealt with by the police. The police have acted entirely independently. Senior Ministers were briefed after the Commissioner of Police had made up his mind about where he was going in relation to these matters. The Government does not interfere and indeed sometimes hearing some of the commentary on this matter it seems to me that people are calling for the Government to interfere against the police.