Locke Keith: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12795] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The final point on my Supplementary Order Paper is that I support by an amendment a thorough review of the original Act by the Human Rights Commission to be completed according to my Supplementary Order Paper by 1 December 2009. Wayne Mapp talked about whether there is a difference between criminal offences and terrorism offences when they involve exactly the same activity of a criminal nature. The only real difference between them if the crime is exactly the same is that one—the terrorism offence—has a higher penalty and the only reason for that is the political religious or ideological motivation. People are not being punished additionally because of something they have done that is worse; they are being punished additionally because their motivation is political religious or ideological. 
There are two parallel offences in the Crimes Act and the Terrorism Suppression Act: participation in a criminal organisation is in the Crimes Act with a penalty of 3 years; participation in a terrorist group is in the Terrorism Suppression Act with a penalty of 14 years. There is no difference in reality between those two offences apart from the penalty. 
I think it is important to see that there are different forms of terrorism. The examples used by Ron Mark Hone Harawira etc. were effectively forms of State terrorism: the Rainbow Warrior bombing and the historical State terrorism against Maori earlier in New Zealand history as has been described. Even over the last 2 weeks other examples have been coming to light such as a determination that the British State murdered the Brazilian de Menezes although no one is going to be punished for that apparently. 
Dianne Yates made the point that if people send money overseas to a nationalist organisation like the African National Congress as has been done in the past they should not worry—that will not be caught under this terrorist legislation. I think there are two practical problems with that. We are not talking about a Government like the one we have in New Zealand today which is quite a liberal Government in many respects. We are talking about a Muldoon-type Government or an even worse type of Government that could apply this legislation using the executive power that is being increased in this amendment bill. That is a problem. 
Secondly there is the reality of situations such as someone in the Sri Lankan Tamil communities for example giving money to some reconstruction work in the Tamil Tiger areas of Sri Lanka. The Tamil Tigers have in the past done some terrorist activity. The reality is that with the conflict in Sri Lanka today and the blockade put around the Tamil Tiger area the money might go in through some covert channel to get through to do this reconstruction. That would be the same case as with the African National Congress in the past—the person sending the money cannot be absolutely sure where it will end up. There are no absolute guarantees in this process but people are acting with goodwill. The clause that previously existed in the Act which is being chopped out is about people trying to give money to protect human rights or advocating democratic government. This legislation makes it just that bit more difficult for them and makes it more likely that a Muldoon-type Government with a Muldoon-type Attorney-General—and it is the Attorney-General and not the Solicitor-General who decides whether the charges go forward—could be prejudiced against us. 
I talk about Sri Lanka because I have been very aware of a very sad case of State terrorism just these last few days. When I visited Sri Lanka in 2003 to look at the peace negotiations I talked to negotiators on both sides of that conflict. The main person I talked to in the Tamil Tiger area was a chap called Mr S P Thamilselvan who was assassinated in a Sri Lankan Government air raid last Friday. He was the peace negotiator and he was assassinated and that was very sad to me. When we talk about terrorism it is not just non-State small-group terrorism that we are talking about it is also State terrorism. 
Let us get back to the definition of a terrorist act. I do not think Wayne Mapp has presented that properly. A person has to do an act with an ideological political or religious cause and then there are two options. There is an “either/or” option. The first one is “to induce terror in a civilian population”—that is an “either/or” option. A person does not need to fall under that at all if section 5(2)(b) applies—“to unduly compel or force a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act.” That is what many protest groups around this country and around the world do. They are often deemed by the Government of the day to be unduly compelling the Government to do something so that in itself is not bad. 
Then the legislation defines outcomes and these outcomes are also “either/or”. One of these is serious interference with or serious disruption to an infrastructure facility if likely to endanger human life. There is no need whatsoever to have any intention to harm anyone or to endanger anyone’s life—it just needs the ancillary result of the action to endanger human life even if there was no intention of doing so. 
That is where the legislation creates such a problem for non-violent protest groups who may intentionally or unintentionally disrupt an infrastructure facility. There is nothing to state that one has to have any nefarious intent towards human life or health. I think it is important to get that because that is what is so problematic. 
There was talk earlier in the debate about the balance of the rights of individuals and the rights of communities. This bill is moving more and more away from individual rights and away from the right to due process. It is cutting the High Court out of the renewal of the terrorist designations giving the Prime Minister the right to do that and continuing the problem in the bill of the State determining what happens rather than the judiciary. The Green Party sees this as a problem as we put it against the background of current events without referring to any particular legal proceeding. 
 There is a huge amount of concern in the community and I think that has to be addressed. We need only go back and read the debates on the original legislation to see that people tended to pooh-pooh the idea that domestic protestors of various types would ever be caught up in this legislation—that their homes would be raided or whatever. What is causing concern in the community today is that it seems that the principal Act which imposes 14-year sentences on people for recruiting for financing or participating in a terrorist group is being amended by this bill to add a life sentence for a terrorist act when a terrorist act as I have explained can cover people who do not even intend to do any harm to other individuals. Thank you.