Borrows Chester: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Borrows Chester: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12968] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. I have to say that I agree with a number of the comments already well put by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and other speakers. 
I think some points worth making are that new provisions are required to ensure that terrorists listed under United Nations Resolution 1267 which deals with al-Qaeda or Taliban activities are automatically designated as terrorist entities under New Zealand law. I find it quite surprising that when the Parliament follows the United Nations which we are a part of and have been signed up to for a long time if it does not suit some sides of the House and some organisations outside the House then we get all sorts of criticism. Funnily enough when the Parliament decides not to follow the United Nations line in respect of something else the argument goes the other way. It always seems to come from the same side of the House. I think it is something that shows an entirely inconsistent nature and it is inconsistent with belonging to an organisation such as the United Nations. Of course no doubt they will make the same arguments in Opposition. 
This legislation is about the security of our country and I think we need to look at the way the law works in respect of charges that are wished to be brought under the terrorism suppression legislation. It is not unusual for a search warrant to be sought under the Summary Proceedings Act which is targeted at certain offences and crimes committed under a number of various other Acts and whether it be the Arms Act the Terrorism Suppression Act the Misuse of Drugs Act the Crimes Act or any other Act it needs to be stated on the application. The fact is that the search warrant is sought. It is the empowering document that allows the police to act in a certain way. Bearing in mind the evidence that the police appear to have had it is not surprising that they acted in a way to combat the most severe retaliation that was reasonably expected given what they knew for instance about what arms or restricted weapons were held. 
I find it ironic that although people have insisted that all these weapons were required for pig hunting nobody seems to have come up with an innocent use for a Molotov cocktail in spite of the fact it appears that a number of the charges to have come out of these executed search warrants relate to the possession of restricted and unlawful weapons which included Molotov cocktails. 
I also want to make the point that it is only 2 years since the police had a roadblock in the same area in the central North Island where they were searching for gang members. A school bus was searched and hiding under the seats on the bus were the gang members sought at the time trying to get through the roadblock. 
So I believe from what little I know—albeit that I am not privy to all of the circumstances involved at any one time—that the police have a mandate to act reasonably and to appear to have acted reasonably on the face of it. What happens of course is that once a search warrant has been executed and arrests have been made charges are brought people are held on bail or remanded in custody and that is that. But under this legislation it is required that no charges be brought under the terrorism suppression legislation until there is the authority of the Solicitor-General. We see that in other legislation too. It is not surprising. If we want to charge someone with perjury for instance we have to have the authority of the Solicitor-General before we can lay those charges. 
I guess most recently we have seen the charges brought in respect of allegations against a member of Parliament which needed to have the authority of the Solicitor-General before they could be laid before information could be laid before the court and later indictments presented. But what do we do in this situation? For instance if we find that charges under the Crimes Act or the Arms Act are upheld due to eyewitness evidence that weapons were held on a particular day at a particular time then charges could be laid under the relevant Act. If we then get the permission of the Solicitor-General to lay further charges some charges may be withdrawn and other charges preferred. That is just the way the law is done. 
What do we do when we find people who are a threat to society either a terrorist threat or just a criminal threat in relation to possession of unlawful weapons? Well they must be held on something. It will not be a situation whereby the police will allow these people to go about their business while the police seek further advice and lay charges at some time in the future by trying to find these people and deliver a summons upon them or by asking them nicely to turn up to court on any particular day. 
The fact is that the charges that the police believe were substantiated by items and evidence found in the execution of the search warrant present a serious threat to people who are moving in those circles—people who were in the bush or people who were just generally going about their lawful duty. As an average citizen of this country I was disturbed at some of the television footage I saw of the way that average New Zealanders were being approached on what appeared to be a public road. So charges are laid and people are remanded in custody. That is how the law operates and that is how it will continue to operate until it is changed. It is in this House that those changes are made if support is given for them. I believe that the police acted entirely appropriately. In fact the law demanded that they seek the permission of the Solicitor-General to lay further charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act. 
I also note that the definition of a terrorist act states expressly that legitimate protest advocacy or dissent is not by itself a sufficient basis for implying intent to commit a terrorist act. What that means is that New Zealand’s long legacy of being an international advocate for lawful protests and for citizens’ rights not only within its own country but also around the world will continue. This legislation takes nothing away from that. 
The support of this legislation is reasonable given the society that we live in and given the international environment we live in too. We are finding now that as there is a global interest in various terrorist groups New Zealand is becoming more and more a focus for people transiting through to other countries or coming to New Zealand to take the heat off them. When we speak to the police we are finding that more and more at our borders these people are ingressing our country and during the period that they are staying within our borders they have the opportunity to progress or to elevate the activities they want to carry out—hopefully in someone else’s country. 
I believe that the statements by the Solicitor-General today have been encouraging towards the police and have supported that they acted appropriately. I believe that this is legislation we need because we are part of a peaceful United Nations and there are conventions that we need to abide by and adopting this legislation is in a timely way supporting the rule of law internationally. I look forward to supporting it.