Locke Keith: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Locke Keith: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9344] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I think the points Richard Worth has raised about the commencement date are important—that it is really left to Orders in Council and that we do not quite know what will go on. When it gets to the question of Orders in Council I hope that wisdom will prevail because we do not want to rush into the commencement of the provisions in this bill. That is particularly important in this climate at the present time when people—even members of Parliament—are getting so stirred up about terrorism in a way that it is affecting their rationality and ability to discuss questions of terrorism or of who might or might not be a terrorist in a rational way. So the longer the commencement date is extended the better and I would prefer to have it in this commencement clause that none of the provisions will take effect for 5 years. That would give a proper cooling-down period—not only in New Zealand but around the world. We could take stock a little of some of the infringements of civil liberties in the name of the fight against terrorism—as we see in the matter of Guantanamo Bay which I mentioned before—and there could be time for people to settle down and look at this whole issue in a calm way. 
We have seen today an illustration of why the commencement date should be extended. People have been going on about Ahmed Zaoui both in this debate and in question time and trying to treat him and describe him as a terrorist when the good people on the Refugee Status Appeals Authority who spent months on the matter delivered a 223-page judgment that completely cleared him of all charges of terrorism. But there is an attitude out there and amongst some people in the House that those very skilled people in that area should not be taken account of and that we should just say he is a terrorist. Another example of why the commencement date should be extended is that when one reads the newspapers one sees an example of the Ahmed Zaoui case again. When he was sent to Paremoremo prison in December last year if one reads the papers of that time there was almost an assumption that he was a terrorist. He had been called a terrorist so there was an assumption he was a terrorist. That is the climate we are acting in at the present time so we should not have an early commencement date. 
The police themselves got all carried away in that matter—and they are supposed to be the enforcers of our law. They looked up a website of a chap called Lyndon LaRouche an extreme right-wing nutter who has run for US President is a conspiracy theorist and all the rest of it. The New Zealand Police tapped in their computers and in their security risk certificate for Ahmed Zaoui on 11 December last year they told people to look at that LaRouche site to find out that Ahmed Zaoui was a terrorist. Of course Lyndon LaRouche was just regurgitating the propaganda of the Algerian regime—a murderous regime that had sentenced him to death in absentia. 
Jim Peters 
: What about the French court? 
KEITH LOCKE 
: That is a good call from Jim Peters on my right. The French court is an interesting case. In the year 2000 I think it was— 
Richard Worth 
: 2001. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: In 2001 French court officials said they would have a go at Ahmed Zaoui for something that he and a few other people were supposed to have done in 1993. They tried to make out that he was involved in some terrorist conspiracy. Did they notify Ahmed Zaoui—who was readily obtainable—that he was being brought before a French court 7 or 8 years after that alleged event? No they did not inform him. Did they give him any chance to defend himself? No. What was the nature of the charges? They were gone through by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority in great detail and found to be completely wanting. That was the reality. When in the French court they did convict him did they say they would extradite the guy to go back to France? No they said they would give him a suspended sentence—hardly what they would do for a real terrorist. 
It was not a process of justice and the Refugee Status Appeals Authority got all the evidence together talked to all the people who knew something about the situation and decided that it was a completely phoney process of justice. I think it is an illustration of my point. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I remind members again that this is a debate on the commencement clause.