Prebble Richard: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Prebble Richard: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21662] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak in the third reading debate on the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2). It is just as well to remind the House what the bill is actually about because it was not clear from Mr Locke’s contribution. The third reading is an amendment to the earlier Terrorism Suppression Act that was passed just after September 11. Fundamentally this bill does two things. The earlier legislation made it illegal to give money in this country to support terrorism. It was then realised that there was actually a loophole in the earlier bill—that people could claim they were not giving money to support terrorism that they were just giving it to the entity. So this bill says that that it is illegal in New Zealand—or it will be shortly when this bill is passed—to give money to a terrorist organisation. 
Mr Locke then said that means that people who gave money after the tidal wave would be caught up. Again if members look at that clause it is written so that people have to give the money wilfully they have to know that the money will go to an organisation that engages in terrorism and they have to have no reasonable excuse. I think that Mr Locke is now alone in the House in believing that that could mean that a person who gave money to a street collection could be caught up. Mr Jones on behalf of the New Zealand First Party did raise some questions about that at the Committee stage. We listened to the assurance given by the Minister which is written into the  
Hansard 
 record and which the court will take notice of in the event of any prosecution. All the lawyers in the House say that this law is so written that the requirement of intent is so high that in fact the only people who will be caught will be those who openly say: “I’m collecting money for a terrorist organisation in order to strengthen their ability to bomb the hell out of whomever they are against.” That is about as strong as it would have to be for that one to get home. 
Then there is a second section where the United Nations has designated a number of organisations as terrorist organisations. That section which is now in our law will lapse if this bill is not passed. It was probably contrary to our intentions when we go back to 2002—I have looked back at the  
Hansard 
 lists and no one not even Mr Locke thought that the United Nations would actually have designated 430 is it? 
Hon Member 
: 410. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It has probably gone up a couple more since we started this debate but there are now 410 such organisations. The idea that we would take each one to the High Court would be a huge waste of taxpayers’ money amongst other things. We know from the Zaoui case just how long those sorts of cases might take. 
 So we have a practical question before us. The whole House including New Zealand First now says that we should do this except Mr Locke from the Green Party. It is interesting. I have gone back and looked at  
Hansard 
 and Mr Locke is consistent. He gets up on bill after bill and says that the Green Party is opposed to terrorism and he says that the Greens have opposed it every time it has happened. I have no doubt that he has probably put out press statements after various bombings have occurred. The question is what actions have the Green Party taken in order to protect New Zealand? That is a legitimate question because the No. 1 responsibility of this House of Representatives is the security of the nation and its citizens. It is not our No. 2 or No. 3 responsibility it is our No. 1 responsibility—but not according to the Green Party. 
According to the Green Party it is far more important that we give human rights to those 410 terrorist organisations. I ask the member why. Surely the No. 1 responsibility is the security of New Zealanders. Secondly the proposal he is putting forward as he has been told by officials and by experienced members of this House—in fact I think he himself knows—is completely unworkable. If we were to follow the Greens’ prescription it would not be illegal to raise money in this country for terrorist organisations. We know that if it was not illegal there are a number of misguided individuals—fortunately a very small number—who would do that. New Zealand would become known to be a home for terrorism and that would be as a result of following the Green Party policy. 
Does it matter? Unfortunately it does. We are an MMP Parliament. Obviously the polls might change but it is clearly the objective of Mr Locke’s party to no longer be a critic of the Government but according to Mr Donald to be part of the Government. That is why I think the most significant thing that has come out of this debate is a question for New Zealanders as to whether they want the Green Party to be in charge of our security. I make this statement: if the Green Party becomes part of the Government that is a threat to the security of New Zealand. I do not trust Mr Locke with the information. I do not trust the Green Party. I do not think that the Green members of Parliament should serve on the security committees that look at confidential information that is given to us by our allies. Indeed I think that if the Green Party starts to have Cabinet Ministers we will find that will have an effect on our best protection against terrorism. It has been said by successive Prime Ministers including the present one that our best protection against terrorism is the fact that we have international agreements that enable people to share intelligence. 
I listened to Mr Locke today and he made it clear that he does not trust those organisations. In the speech that he made today his principal arguments against the bill were not what New Zealand would do but what the United States and Britain have done. They are the two nations that supply us with information and they are aware of this House. They are aware of Mr Locke’s  
Hansard 
. No doubt they have a file on him. I have been aware of him since I first ran into him when I was a university student. Mr Locke has never grown up. He has exactly the same views now as those he had at the height of the cold war. He has not moved one inch. The rest of the world has moved on but Mr Locke has not. The only thing that is different about him is that he used to run under a red banner and was never voted for but he then found that if he painted it green but did not change any of his views he could get elected. 
I say that this should be an issue at the next election. I am not standing but I say to anyone who is thinking of voting for the Green Party that if we look at its actual record on this crucial issue the Greens never talk about the environment. They raise matters the logic of which would be that New Zealand would be defenceless against terrorism. Mr Locke has failed in his No. 1 responsibility. His No. 1 responsibility is not to try to get votes from the people who share his paranoid view of the world it is to vote for what is in the best interests of the security of this nation. This bill is absolutely essential for that and his failure to vote for it shows that he is not fit to be part of the Government. I do not think that the Green Party deserves even to be in this House.