Dunne Peter: Counter-Terrorism Bill — First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Counter-Terrorism Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4622] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 It was not possible to distil a great deal from that speech but what it was possible to distil amounted to this: the member on the one hand criticised what he saw as the Government’s reliance on a UN-led rules-based international system saying at the commencement of his speech that that actually compromised New Zealand’s sovereignty and freedom to make its own choices and then on the other hand he said that because we are not with our traditional friends and allies in Iraq we have somehow left ourselves in the international lurch. I say to that member that he cannot have it both ways. If as he said at the conclusion of his speech based on his vast international law experience the issue is all about States working together to resolve international crises and that we have put our faith in international law then I say to him that he needs to sort out very clearly where he actually stands. At the moment he stands desperately astride both camps and as they move further apart all that I can say to the member is that he will find that becomes an extremely uncomfortable position to try to sustain for very long. 
I want to return to the provisions of this bill that is before the House at the moment. I say that the Minister in his introduction—and I think even the member who preceded me briefly conceded this point; he used words like “exposition and explanation” although I thought they were broadly the same thing—talked about the scope of this bill. It is certainly true that it does broaden the net in terms of our ability to respond to particular terrorist situations. It is certainly true that it enables us to complete the implementation locally of a number of international agreements that we have been party to over the years. It is certainly true that in the context of the war against terrorism however it is defined this legislation better positions New Zealand to respond. But having said that there are some issues in the bill that I believe the select committee will want to pay particular attention to. I speak as the chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee which will be hearing submissions on this bill. 
I will tell the House what issues I see as being of potential concern. In part I base what I am about to say on our recent experience with the legislation regarding the Kyoto Protocol where similar types of issues about the protection of individual rights at the expense of the broader rights of the community came into play. Let me explain what I am talking about. There are provisions in this bill regarding the evidence of private communications that have been lawfully intercepted for one purpose being used for another. Although on the one hand it is arguable that we are codifying a situation that has previously not been properly explained on the other hand there will be some significant issues about the scope of the changes that are proposed here and about whether in fact there is the prospect of people who are genuinely innocent being caught up in this network. I refer specifically to the bill’s provisions to overturn what is known as the Aranui case which will “ensure”—and I quote from the explanatory note of the bill—“that evidence of a private communication lawfully intercepted under an interception warrant will be admissible in court if it discloses evidence of any offence for which an interception warrant may be issued”. 
In other words under this bill evidence obtained on one point can now be extended to include other points if in other circumstances a warrant could have been obtained to watch over that particular circumstance. The select committee will want to work its way through that very carefully. On the face of it in the context of this bill that is probably justifiable. But we need to be careful that in broadening the net to deal with terrorism issues we are not broadening it unreasonably in respect of a number of other citizens. 
I make a similar comment in respect of the provisions regarding the repeal of certain sections of the misuse of drugs legislation concerning the use of tracking devices. A point that does need to be stressed is that at the moment there are actually no specific provisions regarding the use of tracking devices. Their use is virtually uncontrolled in that respect. Again on the face of it this bill will for the first time introduce some limitations on that. But thereby hangs the problem: defining adequately what those limitations might be and whether a number of people who are innocent in terms of terrorism charges may well be caught up in that particular net. I think we will want to work our way through that very carefully. 
The third area that comes into this category relates to the provisions concerning the accessing of computer data. I say to the House that during the hearing of evidence on the Kyoto Protocol legislation that particular issue arose very strongly in terms of what might be held on someone’s computer regarding the emission levels of the animals on that person’s farm. Very heated evidence was presented about the level of the test being applied for access to that data and about the rights of entry to property and the rights of seizure being greater than those applied in many other cases. I think it will be important when we look at this issue at the select committee to ensure that the balance is struck at about the appropriate level. We need to ensure that we do not create a situation where there are higher tests than those that apply in many other cases. 
The fourth point—and I support this because I had some discussions with the Minister about this—is that the select committee will be asked to report back on this bill by 31 July. That is a good objective because it strikes me that it would be somewhat ironic to pass counter-terrorism legislation in response to an international terrorism crisis in a rather leisurely way. That would belie the urgency of the subject. Having said that given the range of submissions likely to come forward and the timing of this bill in terms of other priorities that are before the committee at the moment I sound a warning to the House that it may well not be possible to complete the hearing of evidence within that time though we will certainly give that every reasonable chance of succeeding. 
In the broader context—and I will not stray as widely as the previous speaker did—I make these comments: it is clear that we live in an age that is unparalleled in terms of the way in which traditional relationships have broken down and terrorism has become very much an unfortunate norm. The old style of conflict between and among States has changed for ever and we see that portrayed on our television screens constantly at the moment. Therefore a number of the old rules no longer apply. I do not think that that is an argument for saying we should no longer put our faith in a rules-based system and should revert to the “might is right” argument—and there seemed to be touches of that in the speech made by the member who preceded me. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I did not say that and the member knows it. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: He may not have said it explicitly but certainly the inference that could be taken from his speech was that if we put our faith in a rules-based system we on the one hand surrender our sovereignty and on the other hand— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I did not say that. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The member did. He cannot deny what he said. The member said at the commencement of his speech that this Government had placed its faith in the United Nations— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Solely. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: —solely and that as a consequence of that our freedom which is I think the phrase the member used has been compromised. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: That’s right. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Well the inference to be drawn very clearly from that is that that is a compromise of our sovereignty. The member cannot argue that on the one hand and then on the other hand say that the only way of preserving that balance is for us to automatically—and this is my word not his—join the so-called “coalition of the willing”. The two points are contradictory. 
The terrorism issue is part of a broader framework and it needs to be addressed in that context. We need to get law that is sustainable not only in terms of the immediate set of crises that we face but also beyond that into the future. I think that this bill sets us down that path. It will need to be carefully considered by the select committee to ensure that we properly assess the balance between the rights of New Zealanders and the protection of our overall security. Then the bill can be passed later in the year into law.