Jones Dail: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Jones Dail: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21614] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Perhaps I could begin where the previous speaker began and ended. She made one oversight as to the Labour Government’s reaction to 11 September 2001. I think as we all remember one of the Labour Government’s first responses to 11 September 2001 and the air attacks in the United States was to disband the RNZAF’s strike force. That is a very strange response to September 11 but that is the Labour Party. The member forgot that altogether. September 11 involved planes flying across the United States and attempts to shoot them down but the Labour Government disbanded our strike air force. 
I congratulate Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith. If he were presenting this case before the Bar he could not have done a better job of explaining section 8(1) and (2). I was very appreciative of the clear and disinterested way in which he presented those facts and explained how section 8(2) came into the original legislation. We do try to keep things at a reasonable level at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee although from time to time some of us break ranks. 
New Zealand First is concerned about the effect of new section 8(2A) in clause 4 remembering of course that the protection provision of section 8(2) does not apply to new section 8(2A). That is one of its defects. 
I heard the Minister’s speech and I would have liked him to hear this comment from me. The Minister said that the new section requires that someone must intend to do something. The words “must intend” do not appear in the new section 8(2A). They are a figment of the Minister’s imagination and if he relied on them any subsequent person perhaps from the judiciary listening to the Minister’s second reading speech would realise that the Minister was absolutely wrong in the words he used and one wonders what a court might then do. 
New Zealand First is concerned at the implications of new section 8(2A). For example we believe that this amendment could have the effect of making criminals of people who make a contribution to the tsunami-affected areas in the part of Sri Lanka controlled by the Tamil Tigers or in Aceh Indonesia. It is currently illegal to make a donation to a terrorist entity itself but this amendment goes further and creates a new crime of benefiting people who live in an area controlled by such an entity. New Zealand First believes that it is bad legislation—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I apologise Mr Jones. Could members please be seated and could they all keep the chat down. It is very disconcerting. 
DAIL JONES 
: As I was saying New Zealand First believes that this amendment could have the effect of making criminals of people who make a contribution to the tsunami-affected areas in the part of Sri Lanka controlled by the Tamil Tigers or in Aceh Indonesia. 
It is currently illegal to make a donation to a terrorist entity itself—section 8(1)—but this amendment goes further and creates a new crime of benefiting people who live in an area controlled by such an entity. New Zealand First believes it is bad legislation that would have made criminals of the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders including the New Zealand Government who made donations knowing they would benefit people living within the area of Sri Lanka controlled by the Tamil Tigers or in Aceh Indonesia. That means that every member of this Government and of this House who will vote for aid money being made available to people who live in the Tamil Tigers’ area of Sri Lanka— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Who would prosecute for that? 
DAIL JONES 
: That is not our role as a Parliament. Our role is to make sure that there is no opportunity to prosecute for that. We do not pass legislation in the hope that no one will prosecute. We pass legislation so that no one can prosecute and that is the difference. That is obviously what Dr Lockwood Smith does not understand and where the National Party New Zealand First and the Government disagree. We should have legislation that does not give one the opportunity to prosecute rather than saying: “Hey don’t worry about it. We’ll pass this but no one can ever prosecute.” That is where the nonsense arises. 
New Zealand First is not satisfied with the officials’ interpretation of the proposed new section 8(2A). It believes that even more uncertainty will be created if the new section is passed into law. Of course at the moment the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee is reviewing this entire legislation. The review has already commenced and we in New Zealand First prefer to see this issue more thoroughly and clearly canvassed in the review. That is why I have proposed an amendment to delete clause 4. 
What did the officials actually say to the committee and how does the report read? It was very clear from reading the first page of the report on new section 8(2A) that the committee was concerned. As Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith has pointed out many submitters criticised the scope of proposed section 8(2A) which criminalises the provision of general financial support to all terrorist organisations whether or not they are designated and said that it could potentially catch legitimate funding activities for democratic rights or human rights movements. That is referred to in the committee’s report as a whole which states: “We were concerned about the effect of this section on someone donating money to a street collector collecting for an organisation that unbeknownst to them is involved in or contributes to terrorist activities and that under this section a person simply donating money could be prosecuted for funding terrorist activities.” Those are the words of the majority—the Labour Party the National Party and I presume United Future and ACT. The majority of the committee expressed that concern. 
The majority was also concerned that groups collecting money and those donating to them might be falsely accused of knowingly supporting terrorism. That is New Zealand First’s concern. We do not want to see bad law going into our books especially when there is a review of the whole legislation taking place. 
 The committee went on to state: “However we are now satisfied that neither the intent nor wording of the provision catches the funding of legitimate human rights humanitarian or democratic rights groups acting solely in this way.” If the committee was so certain that is where its view should have ended. But the commentary continues: “We seek the Government’s confirmation that this is indeed its intent.” Well that is no way to pass a law. The committee is virtually saying: “We don’t really know but can the Government confirm to us that this is not its intent?”. But a judge is not going to say: “I’ve read the law. I’m trying to make up my mind. Minister could you come in and tell me this wasn’t your intent?”. What a ridiculous way of passing legislation. The legislation should be clear on the face of it; and the committee’s report if it is read by any judge will indicate that the committee was uncertain as to the intent of the legislation. That is not on in New Zealand. 
The committee believed that: “To commit the offence a person must know that the money raised will benefit an entity that carries out terrorist acts.” How does one get money from New Zealand to the area in Sri Lanka controlled by the Tamil Tigers? There is only one way and that is through the Tamil Tigers. Therefore all those Sri Lankans who raised money for people living in the area controlled by the Tamil Tigers and the people who raised money for Aceh in Indonesia knowing that it had to go through groups that are terrorist organisations because that is the only way people in the area can get the money are made criminals in terms of this bill. For example what about the young people who held stalls raising money for flood relief for the tsunami-hit areas? 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Rubbish! 
DAIL JONES 
: It does that because they know the money will be disposed of through the Tamil Tigers. Who else will do it? It will not be the Sri Lankan Government because the Government is not allowed into that area. 
Are Labour and National saying that no money can go to the areas controlled by the Tamil Tigers because obviously that breaches what they say the United Nations wants? At the very least the Government could have allowed section 8(2) to apply to this as well but no Government members were so mean in the select committee trying to race this bill through they would not agree to that being the situation. 
The commentary continues: “This is an extremely high threshold for the Crown”. New Zealand First does not believe in high thresholds or low thresholds; the standard is beyond reasonable doubt as a rule. If one wants to make it a high threshold one puts it in the Act. There is only one way of interpreting criminal law and that is according to the well-known principles of statutory interpretation and proof. 
I have spent my time on this issue. I understand there will be just the one vote at the end of this; there will not be two votes because there are no amendments before the select committee. New Zealand First will vote for the select committee report but when we come to the Committee stage I will be voting for my amendment and hoping that it will get through. New Zealand First is strongly committed to fighting terrorism—more committed than the Government is because we want a strike air force and the Government does not. We wish to make sure that the views of those ordinary New Zealanders who wanted to give money to tsunami-affected areas to the Aceh areas and to anything else are represented.