Worth Richard: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Worth Richard: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9339] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 It is not often that speeches on the title can be evocative and romantic. Certainly in the course of these short comments it is not my plan to meet that high threshold standard. However I would like to make several points to a crowded Chamber and a large number of alert listeners. Those comments do centre on the title the “Counter-Terrorism Bill”. I am very much aware that there has been already before the House a Terrorism Suppression Bill which has passed through its stages. There is always a niggle at the back of the minds of those who serve in the intelligence community centring on the words “counter-terrorism”. Certainly in the context of objectives to be achieved terrorism suppression—albeit that that name has already been taken—is a much happier phrase. I see Government members nodding in acquiescence to that view and so they should. 
In looking at the name of the bill—the “Counter-Terrorism Bill”—the starting point I suggest is to explore briefly what a terrorist act is. Although that is not defined in this particular bill it certainly was in the Terrorism Suppression Act. That Act had associated with it three conjoint elements in the test. As members will recall the first element of the test was that the act was carried out to advance an ideological a political or a religious cause. The second element of the test was that the act was intended to induce civilian terror or perhaps to unduly compel a Government or an international organisation to do or not do something. The third element was that the act was intended to cause one of a number of outcomes. Without going through that material those outcomes included destruction of or damage to property and the introduction or release of disease-bearing organisms. 
Whilst I have no quibble with the word “terrorism” in the title of this bill it is the word “counter” that I may perhaps take exception to. When I say I may take exception to that I need to qualify that. As we know this bill in terms of its title will have a short future life. That is because the bill will be divided in a dramatic way into six separate bills. It will lose its present title upon that event occurring if Supplementary Order Paper 163 is passed. Supplementary Order Paper 163 proposes that the bill be split into six wholly separate pathways. Those pathways would see this legislation variously called the Crimes Amendment Act the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Act the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Act the Sentencing Amendment Act and the Summary Proceedings Amendment Act. So although there are good motives behind the previous speaker’s comments which were intended to convey a more correct appellation in terms of the title to the bill it is too late for such comments. He sought to embark upon a pointless exercise because the Counter-Terrorism Bill of tonight will shortly be renamed in the ways that I have described. 
The previous speaker made—and of course Dr Mapp in his usual fluent style similarly made—the point that some philosophical issues relating to the title are well discussed I would assert in the commentary on the bill as reported from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. Under the heading “Approach to new provisions in the bill” a philosophical argument is raised based on views expressed by Professor Matthew Palmer whom I hold in the highest regard that terrorist acts are no different in many cases from normal crimes such as murder or bombing except for the political ideological or religious motive behind the terrorist acts. So there is a policy argument that needs to be well addressed here. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I take the point made by the preceding speaker that we are looking at a bill that will shortly be split into the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Act the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Act and the Summary Proceedings Amendment Act. As far as the title is concerned a wide range of titles is possible and certainly will happen. A suggestion was put forward by the Greens member that the bill should be called the “Crimes Amendment and Counter-Terrorism Bill”. New Zealand First supports this legislation. We are strongly in favour of all action to support law and order and to take action against terrorist activities including those with ideological political or religious causes and we support the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service aspect of the legislation. 
One sometimes wonders where the Greens are coming from in this Parliament. Here they are opposing the Labour Government. Legislation has been passed that has gone though the House purely because of Green support—I think of the Supreme Court Bill in particular—but they are raising objections to this bill. If the Greens were sincere about being an Opposition party they should have opposed the Supreme Court Bill as well as this bill rather than keeping the Government and its policies in place. But they just want to allow the Government to run for the 2 or so years that it has to go—unless Miss Helen Clark waves the white flag earlier than usual—and to collect whatever is coming to them in the meantime. The Greens have no regard for the proper constitutional way of doing things which makes things difficult for the Labour Government. Instead they supported the Labour Government on the Supreme Court Bill and then opposed it on the genetic modification legislation. The only consistency about the Greens is that they will do everything possible to keep the Government in office even though that means that their views on the genetic modification legislation are ignored defeated and destroyed by the Government. 
I now get back to Mr Locke’s view that this bill should be called the “Crimes Amendment and Counter-Terrorism Bill”. His may be the only opposing view to be expressed in the Committee. The time to have really dug his toes in and to have tried to get some support for his measure was before the Supreme Court Bill was passed. He should have told the Government what to do with that type of legislation because the appeal rights and suchlike of the Counter-Terrorism Bill—which is about be divided into a number of different bills—that people may wish to have enforced would have been better considered by an independent body such as the Privy Council rather than by the bodies that currently exist in New Zealand. 
When Mr Locke opposes the bill he also supports Mr Zaoui. We know that Mr Zaoui has been banned from a couple at least of European countries because he is a terrorist. Why on earth should anyone in New Zealand want that person to be retained here? Mr Zaoui had the opportunity to go through 17 different countries in the world all of which have rejected him and here we have the Greens wanting to support him. That is quite an extraordinary state of affairs. Mr Zaoui is a person who got on a plane to come to New Zealand destroyed his passport on the way here and then expected us to throw out the welcome mat for him. It is an extraordinary state of affairs. The Greens talk about wanting to protect our country and our environment from germs and suchlike but they seem to have no hesitation in allowing any type of person to come into this country and create any type of terrorist havoc. There is a great inconsistency in the way that the Greens—and Mr Locke in particular—look at these measures. 
The New Zealand First Party will support this bill as it always does with regard to legislation that implements good law and order and that will ensure that ideological political and religious causes are not supported by terrorist activities. We look forward to supporting the bills into which the Counter-Terrorism Bill will be divided pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 163.