Mark Ron: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Mark Ron: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9346] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Let me start by saying that we are discussing— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: We are talking about the commencement date. 
RON MARK 
: Yes that is what I thought. We were talking about clause 2 “Commencement” but with Mr Locke having opened up with such a tirade he has expanded the debate under the normal conventions allowing people such as Mr Mapp to respond. I simply want to make one comment on the Zaoui case—the case that Mr Locke outlined in his argument against the commencement date. From where New Zealand First stands Mr Zaoui would not be causing any discussion any debate or any conjecture as to whether he is a terrorist had he been dealt with as the illegal entrant into this country that he is—end of story. 
Mr Zaoui came here with some documents trashed them presented himself without documentation and claimed political asylum and refugee status. Mr Zaoui should have been put on the first aircraft back to the country from whence he came and we would not be wasting time and taxpayer dollars debating the merits of his perceived case. That is precisely where I stand on that issue. I cannot for the life of me understand how Mr Locke can go out there and talk to people about how they do not get adequate funding to pay for free health-care for children under 6—they are all having to shell out of their pockets now—while at the same time Mr Zaoui is consuming hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of legal aid of SIS time of court time and of jail time all courtesy of the taxpayer. 
It is interesting looking at the commencement date and I would like the Minister if he has a moment to take a call. The Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper refers to sections 10 to 23 being deferred and coming into force on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. The remaining provisions will come into force on the day after the date on which the Act receives the royal assent. What does that mean? If we look at the wording in clauses 10 to 23 we notice straight up that we are looking at amendments to the principal Act that being the Terrorism Suppression Act. People need to remember that this bill enhances and makes some modifications to the Terrorism Suppression Act to make it more effective. Mr Locke has suggested that we should defer the commencement date by 5 years. I ask members of the Committee to take a quiet moment to read clauses 10 to 23 and consider for a moment the impact on our ability to deal with the suppression of terrorism if we deferred this bill for another 5 years. We are talking about improving the principal Act by adding reference to the Nuclear Material Convention and the Plastic Explosives Convention—conventions that we have signed up to conventions that we have pledged to support and that we have passed legislation to ratify and make meaningful. 
I say to the Minister what are the implications of deferring the bill for 5 years? Can the Minister help enlighten Mr Locke as to what the implications of a deferment for 5 years would be? Clause 11 “Interpretation” states: “Section 4 of the principal Act is amended by inserting in their appropriate alphabetical order the following definitions: ‘duly authorised military device means an explosive article including but not restricted to shell bomb—’ ”. We are talking about clauses that I understand are essential in enhancing the Terrorism Suppression Act and making it more meaningful and effective and to allow us to comply with previous conventions that we as a nation have agreed to. 
The notion that we can sit here and breathe through our noses and take time to reflect ponder and gaze at our navels whilst we allow people to “calm down and overcome their fears of terrorism”—unduly founded as Mr Locke would have us believe—is nonsensical. In the very short time of less than 2 years since the attacks on the twin towers we have seen bombing incidents all over the world and terrorism—far from decreasing—is increasing. Soft targets such as New Zealand are considered lambs to the slaughter by people who would further their own political agendas around the world and there will come a time as other countries harden their internal defence systems when places like New Zealand will be seen as the only attractive and viable target.