Flavell Te Ururoa: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12783] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena koe Madam Chair. Kia ora tatouiteneiahiahi. I would just clarify in case it is up for question the Maori Party’s perspective in respect of the notion of terrorism as a name in this bill the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. First the Maori Party is clear that we have to take terrorism as a notion seriously. Second we believe in the rule of law and in the desire on the part of the forces of this country to protect us from the notion of terrorism should it arrive in Aotearoa. Should those people rightly charged under that particular label follow a path in law so be it—just as we would expect that those who carry firearms without a licence for example are liable for the consequences that might come from the law moving appropriately to deal with them. 
I think one issue that has not been addressed in respect of the discussion around this word “terrorism” as part of this bill is the possible impacts or downstream effects on communities and indeed the whole country in terms of this title “terrorism”. I will put it in this context. Not too long ago the country was awoken by way of reports and so on across our newspapers televisions news media and radio that the terrorism threat was alive and well in Aotearoa and that in fact one community in Aotearoa was the subject of actions to deal with the notion of terrorism in Aotearoa. What the Maori Party has attempted to do in the recent past by way of questions that we have asked is to make the House and indeed Aotearoa aware of the major impact of any move whatsoever under the banner of anti-terrorism although still taking it seriously. I can tell the Committee that in my constituency as I go around the communities that have seen some of the actions taken under the banner of anti-terrorism recently one iwi in particular feels that it has been labelled not just in the last week or in the last 2 or 3 weeks but in fact forever as a tribal nation that has engendered and promoted the notion of terror. I think that we have to be very careful in any actions that we want to take in respect of this particular bill and the primary Act because the consequences down the line may well be very dire not just for those tribal nations if it happens to be one or for the nation but for the next generation in Aotearoa. 
When I opened the discussion during the second reading I tried to tell the House that in a sense there are three ways of looking at this bill. One was the political context and at the time we were discussing the repeal of sedition. The second context was with regard to one tribal nation awaiting the Waitangi Tribunal report—in that case it was the Tuhoe nation. In terms of the social context I talked about some of the stories that have come to me about the actions taken by the authorities charged with protecting the nation under the banner of anti-terrorism. I gave a number of examples. 
The first point that I want to make in terms of the discussion is that we need to be careful in respect of the label of terrorism—in particular I noted the notion of the Tuhoe nation being possibly branded with the title “Tuhoe: terrorist iwi.” 
 Second I want to make a point around the discussion of the word “suppression” which is in the title of the bill. I did a bit of research in preparing for my korero today about the notion of suppression. One definition is “to forcibly put an end to or to prevent from being expressed or published.” We have a major concern that there will be suppression of not merely terrorism but much legitimate debate on and challenge to decisions and actions of the Government. There has always been a concern from the Maori community that some of its members could be targeted under the labels of “Maori activist” and “radical”. That is some of the feedback we have had. 
The 2002 bill initially had provisions prohibiting crowds from gathering for protest purposes. So the question we ask is this. Who else has had their views suppressed? It is useful for us to look at the campaign Operation 8 as an example of the scattergun approach that will be used to suppress terrorism. Some of the people who have come to my office and to our offices in the Maori Party have talked about the organic farmer in Taupo whose son-in-law hails from Ruatoki or perhaps the pensioner in Tauranga whose house was raided on 16 October. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. The member cannot talk about individual cases associated with this case. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I just wanted to make it clear that these are examples of things that have come to my office. These issues are not before any court at this point in time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member just needs to come back to the bill. If he is talking about the issue within the bill he is OK. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Speaking to that point I say that I started by talking about the whole notion of terrorism and then I went on to the notion of suppression. What I am trying to talk about—which is what I started off talking about—is the term “suppression” and how the impacts of that might flow through in terms of this bill. I have used some concrete examples to do that I hope. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I assure the member that that is OK but I do not want the member to in any way touch on current issues before a court. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I think it is important to get clarity here. Clearly we do not want to talk about cases that are before the court. But if what is being talked about relates to police actions that did not result in any court cases—and in that Tauranga case for instance no charges ensued—it is not I think out of bounds in the context of this debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is right. It is all right as long as it is in the context of this bill. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Again I just refer back to the notion of our interpretation of suppression. I was talking about the idea that a number of constituents have come through my office recently in respect of the wider context of what has happened in Aotearoa recently. I am using these examples to clearly illustrate that a lot of it does very much come down to the notion of definition particularly with regard to this bill. In fact Supplementary Order Paper 158 in Mr Keith Locke’s name which we will talk about further on in this discussion will give us some direction around that. 
As I said there are a number of examples and I talked about them earlier. Dr Pita Sharples this afternoon referred to a whanau returning to Waiohau on 17 October to tangihanga. I have seen some points that have come through my office in terms of a minister in Wellington who unfortunately as a teacher was hauled out from his class from his school and detained because of suspicion of terrorism. Those are some of the examples that we have to be careful of. I just wanted to make the point that the title of this bill the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill has created fear amongst the general community that their democratic rights to express their views are jeopardised that their right to freedom of speech will be threatened and that their independent opinions will be prevented from being expressed or published. 
Dr Wayne Mapp talked earlier about the United Nations and he suggested that the Maori Party and indeed the Green Party were in some way or another speaking against the United Nations’ recommendations. I would like to make it clear that it is one thing to speak against the United Nations and it is another thing to turn round and all of sudden under the banner of supporting the United Nations come up with some extensions to a bill that is already in place. We have talked in our speeches previously about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and this Government not supporting that particular claim whereas under this bill the idea it seems is to support the United Nations. So it is almost a contradiction in that sense. 
I want to move on a bit and say that the concerns amongst the community about the extent of this notion of suppression have resulted in widespread action in some communities in opposition to this focus in the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. It is unfortunate that things have come around at the same time. There have been the actions that have taken place in various places throughout the motu—in Rotorua and Whakatane—recently the second reading of the bill and of course the focus on the United Nations and on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. So there has been a particular focus on this bill and all manner of New Zealanders have been speaking out about it. The Human Rights Commission has been receiving official complaints from Maori and Pakeha about some action taken by police recently and at Tapu Te Ranga Marae in Island Bay last weekend gone there was a nationwide hui to discuss human rights. Again all of this was in the context of the bill we are considering at the moment—the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. 
I just want to make sure that the Committee is aware that this bill has serious connotations down the line. Yes it is important that we consider the notion of terrorism throughout Aotearoa but we want to make sure that people have the right to go about their lawful business and to express themselves in a way that is appropriate for them.