Dunne Peter: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
Dunne Peter: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12995] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call on the third reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill firstly to indicate that United Future will be voting for this bill and secondly to comment on some of the particular circumstances that apply to it. 
It may seem somewhat perverse for the House to be proceeding with this legislation at this time given the recent ruling by the Solicitor-General in respect of the primary Act but if the provisions in this bill are not passed at this stage there will be far more serious consequences for our ability to deal with international terrorism than the recent ruling of the Solicitor-General. For example if the provisions in this bill relating to the designation of international organisations do not pass a number of those designations will lapse which will make those entities effectively legal operatives within New Zealand. This not only places us out of step with a number of other nations but more important indicates that because we are out of step with those nations we may become a convenient haven for those prescribed organisations to establish and flourish in New Zealand. Frankly no one would tolerate that situation or want it to happen. So it is important that this legislation is passed now to enable the rollover that is contained within it for a further 3 years to take effect so that we do not find ourselves in a position of those designations lapsing and a far more serious situation applying. 
As the member who has just spoken pointed out a number of other provisions in the bill need to be put in place with regard to the prospect of international—and I underline that word “international”—terrorism occurring within this country. I think things have become a little confused in recent days because of the ruling of the Solicitor-General in respect of aspects of the principal Act being applied internally to organisations within New Zealand with a clearly New Zealand focus. 
I go back to the point that the previous speaker Dianne Yates made. As a former chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee I know how thoroughly the committee on all sides worked on these matters when the review of the primary Act was undertaken during the term of the previous Parliament. I also know that in the examination that occurred of the submissions that were presented there was a considerable effort made by members of the committee to make sure that legitimate dissent fair protest and the sort of activity that we expect to be able to occur in a free society like New Zealand was not going to be compromised by the passage of these provisions. If anything I think what happened is that the committee probably erred on the side of protecting those who would be involved in domestic protests to ensure that their rights were not inhibited rather than taking perhaps the stronger line that might have given the consistency that the Solicitor-General said he was seeking to no avail when making his ruling earlier in the week. 
I do not regret the position that the select committee took. I think it was appropriate to take a cautious stand. I think it is equally appropriate now for there to be a wider review of the Terrorism Suppression Act to see what its application is to the domestic environment whether amendments need to be made or other legislation altogether is required to deal with those situations that may well have a threat to our domestic security but which are clearly not international terrorist situations in their nature or design. So I think that step is one that needs to be taken quite separately from this bill but this bill does need to be passed at this point in time in order to give effect to provisions that have a much wider application than simply the domestic environment. 
The chair of the select committee who preceded me spoke at some length about the process the select committee adopted in dealing with this bill. I will not go over that again. I concur with her that it was thorough well organised and proper. 
I note too the minority reports from both the National Party and the Greens on this bill. I think the National Party minority report does raise some fair issues relating to the designation that need to be considered. I think the report from the member of the Green Party as I said at an earlier stage is something that—although I disagree with it—is a call to conscience that the House and the country should heed. 
I think this bill is a useful step forward. I do not think it will be as controversial as those who oppose it fear. I think it is necessary to make the overall environment safer in respect of our ability to deal with international terrorism. But I do think in light of the events of recent days that the course of action of having the domestic situation more thoroughly reviewed by the Law Commission and issues along the lines of how we promote national security considered may well be a fairer way to go at this point. So I support this legislation but— 
John Hayes 
: This House is elected to make law. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Obviously this House is elected to make law and this House will make law but I think having an independent review by the Law Commission which would then come back to the Parliament as legislation and then be considered by the member’s select committee is the appropriate way to go. I cannot see how one can oppose that course of action. That course of action really suggests that if there are errors in this law that have been determined by the Solicitor-General as making it impossible for him to act in this situation we should at the very least take every opportunity to make sure that we get it right next time around. The member seems to be suggesting that we should not do that that we should simply pass some sort of remedial law at this stage— 
John Hayes 
: We should do the work. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Well ultimately the House will do the work—that is the point. But I think we need to be guided in that by an independent review from the Law Commission and I certainly support that occurring.