Flavell Te Ururoa: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12810] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Chairperson and thank you for your lead in respect of the direction about the— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: In reflecting on your comment earlier Mr Chairperson about the wrap-up time of the discussion I want to comment a little bit about Mr Mark’s korero in making us aware that maybe we need to consider that issues of terrorism might be just around the corner. He referred to the  
Rainbow Warrior 
 scenario and we acknowledge that—it is a fair call. He talked also about what our tupunaMaori fought for and possibly implied that they may well be turning in their graves in respect of our stand now against terrorism or at least the perceived stand by the Maori Party. He talked about the Maori Battalion and those who went overseas. He did not talk about HaaneManahi and Willy Apiata but they follow a long line of people who have been committed to this country in trying to create a better nation for us. Always in Maori communities we tend to ask what their sacrifice was for. On Anzac Day our people generally reflect on that discussion—what was the death of so much Maori leadership all about. I think it was about creating a better New Zealand and creating a positive environment for both Maori and Pakeha to come together. 
That is all very well until it comes time to deal with the Maori issue. As Dr Sharples reflected the notion of one law for all is all very fine and good until it comes to the crunch when we get to issues like the seabed and foreshore where people have the ability to change laws at the drop of a hat whereas they may not necessarily support the dreams and aspirations of one of our peoples of this land. Recently in the courts of this land Federation of Maori Authorities has been challenging some of the developments by the Crown in respect of Crown forest rentals trust lands. The notion about one law for all is all very well and good but if one has the ability to change those laws to the detriment of another and without the discussion then we question that. 
At this point in time a number of speakers have talked about the notion of waiting—let us wait and hear for example about some of the scenarios that we face as a country right now in terms of particular actions in the Bay of Plenty. Even with this particular bill and the possibility of having to wait on the outcomes of actions taken under any sort of terrorism suppression legislation one of the questions that is still hanging is “how long?”. How long will people have to wait to receive to know and to understand the charges they have to face? Will it be 3 weeks a month a year? Is there an end time? Will people if they come under this legislation tracking through be incarcerated for up to 2 years without necessarily knowing the length and breadth of the charges? At the moment in a scenario that we face as a country right now a lot of the information under the notion of terrorism suppression is not well known. It is locked down because of the actions of the court. 
That is all very well and good but what about the consequences for those families and children who have to wait for their mothers and fathers? What about the hapu that have to wait for their uncles and aunties and so on while somebody makes a determination about whether a charge will be laid under the Terrorism Suppression Act? 
In trying to draw some of the discussion together the Maori Party is concerned that under this legislation New Zealand would automatically adopt the UN list of terrorists and terrorist organisations in the sense that it is the US that dominates the compilation of these lists. The effect is that New Zealanders working to support for example liberation struggles and democracy and human rights overseas would now be faced with the prospect of being charged with supporting terrorist organisations. Under the new proposal it would have been illegal to provide support as Mr Keith Locke talked about to the African National Congress in the fight against apartheid or for campaigns to have Nelson Mandela released from jail. The previous legislation allowed support and assistance to organisations provided it was “for the purposes of advocating democratic Government or the protection of human rights.” This wording is to be removed. New Zealand will give up its right to make its own independent assessments of terrorists and terrorist designations and without the ability to make our own independent assessments we will become rather captive to prejudiced politically motivated overseas assessments such as those that relate to Ahmed Zaoui. 
Previously New Zealand adopted the UN designations in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The Maori Party says that this safeguard would be removed. The process for review of designations would become less independent and more vulnerable to political interference also allowing greater influence from other nations. The new offence of “terrorist act” could be applied to non-terrorist persons and actions for example protests—bringing back the concerns raised over the Terrorism Suppression Bill. 
Mr Keith Locke talked about current criminal offences covering all terrorist acts. So the introduction of the new offence of terrorist act seems almost unnecessary. I note that the New Zealand Law Society submission argued that the new crime “engaging in a terrorist act” should not be added to our statute book. As Mr Locke said such terrorist behaviour is already covered by a range of offences such as murder and kidnapping each with heavy maximum penalties. We say that the new terrorism offence could cause confusion amongst prosecutors as to which charge to lay—engaging in a terrorist act or the underlying offence—which could result in inconsistent sentencing and the possibility of that notion of double jeopardy. The fact is the terrorist act carries a penalty of life imprisonment so it is critical that all of the issues are worked through properly or else we could end up with a situation that possibly every political and environmental protester in the country is locked away for undertaking activities like fund-raising as clause 7 talks about or posturing as clauses 11 and 12 talk about—in other words recruiting members and participating in terrorist groups. We have a real concern about that. 
The courts are removed from considering designations of terrorists or terrorist organisations. At the moment if the Prime Minister designates a terrorist organisation then this is reviewable by the High Court after 3 years as we understand it. Independent scrutiny of cases will no longer be available. The Prime Minister will be the judge and jury. The US wants this—we say that the US has some vested interest in this—and it could be that we are subject to international pressure in respect of who is and who is not a terrorist. At least with the courts there is some semblance of independent scrutiny although I did hear what Mr McCully talked about earlier. 
The assumption of power by politicians over court processes is demonstrated pretty clearly by the US with its treatment of Guantánamo Bay detainees and the CIA rendition programmes whereby suspected terrorists have been transferred around the world for possibly torture. In both cases the court has been sidelined. We say that in terms of New Zealand that would be a disgraceful episode. That is just drawing together some of the comments made in the Chamber a little bit earlier in trying to focus us in on some of the arguments that the Maori Party has attempted to put before the Committee and also hearing the arguments of the other parties. Kia ora tatou.