Smith Lockwood: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Lockwood: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21655] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I believe that in debating this bill the Committee of the whole House actually had a very good debate but I will come back to that in a moment. It is important that people understand exactly what this bill which we are reading for a third time will do. The bill will amend the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 which implemented United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373—the resolution requiring all members of the United Nations to take measures to combat global terrorism and to take measures within their own jurisdictions to combat terrorism. 
I would like to thank the team of officials who worked with the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on this legislation. It was a small but very good team. I think there were some quite complex issues and some serious considerations about the balance between security and individual human rights that had to weighed up by the committee. The officials gave us very good quality advice. I do not often say that because I have heard a lot of official advice over the years but I thought the team members advising the committee were very good. 
I mentioned a moment ago that I thought the debate in the Committee of the whole House was very good and I will explain why I believe that. I think it is important with legislation such as this which involves New Zealand’s security that there is overwhelming support for it in this Parliament. The security of our country is one of the most important things this Parliament addresses when we are handling legislation and one would like to think that the kind of legislation we pass enjoys the support of most parties when we are dealing with the issue of security. 
It was interesting that when the debate started on Part 1 New Zealand First was opposed to it and was in fact proposing to move an amendment to delete clause 4. During the debate—which I thought was a very good debate—New Zealand First changed its view and withdrew that amendment and ended up supporting clause 4. I do not criticise New Zealand First in any way for changing its view. I think that the Committee of the whole House is actually working well when that sort of thing happens. There was good debate put forward and good arguments as to why clause 4 was needed and I think New Zealand First listened to those arguments. Dail Jones the member from New Zealand First who was handling the matter on that party’s behalf listened to the arguments modified the view of his party and ended up supporting Part 1. That was very good. 
I think what really persuaded New Zealand First was the very strong argument that there was a gap in our law through the principal Act. Although section 8(1) of the principal Act makes it illegal for a person in this country knowingly to finance a terrorist act that section does not make it illegal for a person to give money to an organisation that he or she knows is involved in terrorism even though the money given may not be directly given to fund a specific terrorist act. Without new section 8(2A) inserted by clause 4 it would still be legal to give money to a terrorist organisation as long as the organisation was not directly funding a terrorist act. I think New Zealand First members were persuaded by that argument despite their concerns about the full reach of new section 8(2A) and I think that that very good debate led to the outcome of New Zealand First joining the consensus of Parliament where all other parties except one supported that important amendment to ensure that our security legislation was as watertight as possible. 
The one party that remained outside that consensus was the Green Party. I want to address my comments over the next few moments to Mr Locke who led the Green Party arguments. I do not want to make my comments personal but I want to address the logic of what he put to this House. Mr Locke even took the trouble of seeking the leave of the House to make a personal explanation about his and his party’s opposition to terrorism. I accept what he put to Parliament—as we must—that he Keith Locke personally opposes terrorism; he does not support terrorism. I accept that and in making the personal explanation to the House he argued of course that everyone abhorred al-Qaeda and everything al-Qaeda did and stood for and that of course it should be illegal to support al-Qaeda. The member is nodding his head. 
But I say to Mr Locke that the problem is that our current legislation does not make it illegal to give money to al-Qaeda. Currently without that amendment people would have to know they were giving money to a specific terrorist act of al-Qaeda. That is why the amendment is required. It seems to have escaped the Green Party that the reason for making that amendment in Part 1—by which clause 4 inserts new section 8(2A)—is to make it illegal to finance an organisation involved in terrorist acts. 
Clearly if a person finances al-Qaeda once that new section 8(2A) goes through that will be a criminal activity here in New Zealand but without that amendment it is not clear that it would be a criminal activity. Existing section 8(1) requires that for it to be a criminal act to finance something a person has to give “funds intending that they be used or knowing that they are to be used … in order to carry out 1 or more acts of a kind that if they were carried out would be 1 or more terrorist acts.” The section links the financing very tightly to the carrying out of one or more terrorist acts and that is the problem with the existing law. 
I accept the arguments of people like the Hon Richard Prebble and my colleagues in National who have said that the behaviour of Mr Locke and the Green Party in this Parliament is anything but the behaviour of people who genuinely care about New Zealand’s wider environment including our security environment. In fact their behaviour is bizarre and many have branded it red because it is so extreme-left. 
 Be that as it may I call on Keith Locke to reconsider because it would be great if this Parliament could actually reach a consensus on this important anti-terrorism legislation that is important for our security and international obligations. I call on Mr Locke to think about the issue again because under existing law it is not clear that giving money to al-Qaeda is criminal. It should be because as Mr Locke himself has pointed out al-Qaeda is an objectionable organisation. 
In my last moments let me cover just one thing in respect of the Act as it will be amended after we complete this third reading—that is there are some real inconsistencies in it. Both existing section 8(1) which relates to the financing of terrorist acts and section 10(1) which is about the prohibition on making property and services available to terrorist or associated entities have for the avoidance of doubt what I call loosely out clauses. But new section 8(2A) concerning the financing of terrorist organisations will not have that same out clause. 
Clearly in our law it is not good—to put it mildly—to have a part of the Act where there is an out clause for financing terrorist acts and for making property and services available to terrorist organisations but no out clause for just funding a terrorist organisation. All offences are equally unacceptable and should be equally criminal and I hope that the select committee as it completes its review of the principal Act the Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002 will actually remove those avoidance of doubt clauses because I suspect that it would be extraordinarily difficult to achieve a successful prosecution while such sections remained in the principal Act. 
National totally supports this amendment bill. We believe there has been a good quality debate and I think it would be great if the House could reach full consensus on the legislation. If Mr Locke could finally accept that the funding of al-Qaeda should be criminal in this country that would be great too.