Dunne Peter: Motions — Terrorism Suppression Act—Referral of Provisions to Foreign Affairs  Defence and Trade Committee 
Dunne Peter: Motions — Terrorism Suppression Act—Referral of Provisions to Foreign Affairs  Defence and Trade Committee 
[Volume:423;Page:18562] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 This is a very specific motion—namely that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee review certain matters that are specified in section 70(3) of the principal Terrorism Suppression Act. In that regard much of what we have just heard is utterly irrelevant to the process that we will be undertaking. 
I think the previous speaker’s speech demonstrated a confusion that is present in a number of minds. There will be many people in this House in this country and around the world who view events in places such as Iraq Afghanistan and some of the other hot spots in the world today with an increasing degree of unease as to whether the military and political adventures that have been embarked upon can be brought to a successful conclusion. But that does not make those forces from the United States and other places—in some cases supported by New Zealand—that are doing their best to bring about that conclusion terrorists. That is the essential confusion in the member’s mind. We have known since September 11 what the major terrorism organisations in the world are. We know what steps we as a civilised community have to take both to play our part in protecting our citizens from the terrorists’ adventures and also to contribute to the international effort to suppress terrorism. Notwithstanding the misgivings that people may have about outcomes I do not think there would be very many people in the world who would say we should not be taking a strong anti-terrorist line. That is what I believe the principal Act is about. The review that the motion requests the committee to undertake relates to the designation of terrorist organisations as part of that principal legislation. I cannot see that there can be any huge objection to that. 
I will pick up a comment that Dr Lockwood Smith made and correct him ever so slightly. Although it might suit his political argument to claim that the Government relies on the Greens for confidence and supply that is happily not the case. The Government relies on United Future for confidence and supply. I am prepared to make this point: if there was any suggestion that the Government would seek to compromise New Zealand’s national security to appease a party that gives its support from time to time—namely the Greens—then that would be the sort of issue that would call into question the wisdom of our continuing to provide confidence and supply. I have to say I see no evidence that that will happen. The assurance I can give the House is that we will not be complicit in any arrangement through this review in compromising New Zealand’s national security or the security of individual New Zealanders. I happily reassure Dr Smith on that. 
I also want to make the observation that the select committee will take this role seriously. I have the privilege to chair that committee. I think it is a good balanced committee. It has members from most parties in the House who contribute effectively to the work that it does. I am sure that they will carry out this task responsibly and in a measured way and will certainly meet the deadline that is being sought of us with this resolution. 
So I am happy to indicate United Future’s support for this measure. I think we should now proceed to deal with the companion measure which is the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) because it deals with some of the longer-term matters that arise from this.