Flavell Te Ururoa: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2007. Volume:643;Page:12677. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou i tenei po. The report back from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill could not have come at a more pertinent time. Last Friday I fronted up to the community that has been forced into the national spotlight. It is small rural community under siege accused of being a breeding ground for terrorists. 
The valley of Ruatoki in my electorate has now assumed a distinctive classification in the national psyche as the place targeted with allegations of terrorism. The community came out in force on Friday—tamariki whanau teachers bus drivers and caregivers—all forming a hikoi to the Whakatane police station. Some of these people wore placards stating: “I’m innocent” “I’m a hunter not a terrorist” or “Don’t point the gun at me—I’m under five”. In one particular case a placard caught my eye. It stated: “State violence to Tuhoe: yet another generation 1866 1916 2007”. 
The statement on that placard is at the heart of the discussion on this new Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. The Terrorism Suppression Act is being reviewed in three ways: first in a political context as the laws to repeal sedition are being overthrown and while Tuhoe await the Waitangi Tribunal report on their claim; second in a social context best summed up by a young Tuhoe mother who describing her inability to leave the Ruatoki valley and the appearance of the black-garbed officers talked about “being terrorised when we were innocent”; and third in a historical context carved out in Tuhoe tribal memory by the confiscation line that marks the site at which they were punished for their supposed rebellion against the Crown by the confiscation of all their lands in 1866. 
Our party like others supports the notion that we take terrorism and the protection of our country very seriously. But in the case of the actions we have seen in the last week or so I want to make one simple point about the longstanding impact that the police raids have had on Maori psyche. A couple of weeks ago a game was played and lost and a nation mourned. The stages of grief immortalised by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross were described on national radio. The sportspeople were treated to grief therapy. New Zealanders psychoanalysed every last moment of the 90 minutes of pain critiquing the role of the ref reviewing the build-up activities and assessing the state of national identity as they moved through the process of loss. The trauma was taken seriously. The national heroes had suddenly tasted defeat and New Zealand reeled in shock. 
This is a useful example to show how the collective spirit of nationhood works in success and in the crushing overwhelming sense of loss. You see for tangata whenua what happened last Monday 15 October was even more traumatic and sinister because it was much more than a game; it was an armed and terrifying invasion of a community. It was an action that has carried a negative stereotype of Tuhoe to the nation as a tribe of terrorists and that has left trauma horror bewilderment and fear in its wake for people in that community who wonder whether their house will be next. 
The hurt that has been caused through the impact of the anti-terrorist Operation Eight has brought to the surface historical parallels that must be considered in any debate on the suppression of terrorism rebellion and political activism. The use of the 2002 Terrorism Suppression Act has forced Tuhoe back to the memory of the 1863 Suppression of Rebellion Act. As the events unfolded last week we heard Tuhoe people talking of having been there before—referring to the massive confiscation of some 181000 hectares of land from the supposed rebel tribes of Tuhoe Te Whakatohea and Ngati Awa in 1866. They were labelled rebels because of their stand against Government atrocities. 
One koroua spoke of the hunt for Tame Iti having parallels with the pursuit of the Te Kooti Arikirangi Te Turuki. Te Kooti was hunted by the Government of the day in a relentless scorched earth campaign in which people were killed homes destroyed lands and stock ruined and an iwi starved and deprived by the impact of Government actions. Another kuia spoke of a day in 1916 when the then Police Commissioner John Cullen and some 70 constables armed with rifles and revolvers marched into Maungapohatu and arrested Rua Kenana on charges of sedition and resisting arrest. The sedition charges were later thrown out. 
Now there is yet another generation. The perpetuation of injustice generation after generation cannot be forgiven or forgotten. To those who say that this was all way back I say: “Remember the foreshore and seabed legislation of 3 or 4 years ago.” 
I find it deeply worrying that the definition of a terrorist act in the principal Act that is under amendment here—the intimidation of a population in a situation of armed conflict that causes serious injury to civilians not involved in the hostilities of the situation—so specifically describes the actions of the police in Ruatoki. 
The reason we are now considering this bill to amend the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 is that we are told that certain provisions of the Act are inconsistent with New Zealand’s obligations under the United Nations charter and the United Nations Security Council resolutions on terrorism. The bill is designed to bump up compliance with international counter-terrorism obligations—obligations that give effect to a number of mandatory resolutions relating to Osama bin Laden al-Qaeda and the Taliban. It is fascinating that the executive although unable to sign up to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples just 2 months ago now expects us all to be very scared about the consequences of not signing up to these other United Nations charters and resolutions. 
The Maori Party is particularly concerned about the extension of national designations recommended in this bill. We are concerned that the independence of the High Court jurisdiction in the continued designation of terrorist entities is removed in favour of a determination by the Prime Minister. We believe that the process of review of designations would become less independent and even more vulnerable to political interference. There is also the risk of enabling greater influence from other nations such as the United States. 
We agree with the submission from the Global Peace and Justice group that if such a provision were to proceed then independent scrutiny of cases would be minimised as in effect the Prime Minister will become judge and jury. At least with the courts there is the ideal of independent scrutiny which if absent can be appealed for. 
Another key objection from the Maori Party rests with the creation of a new offence of the commission of a terrorist act—an offence that becomes punishable by up to life imprisonment. The Law Society brought forward its concerns that terrorist activities are not clearly defined in the bill the interpretation being more about motivation and intention rather than defining the actions committed in the actual terrorist offence. It is here that the recent events give us particular cause for concern when we consider the likelihood of double jeopardy. 
By the police detaining suspects under the Summary Proceedings Act and Firearms Act while they then search for evidence for another crime to fit the definition of the Terrorism Suppression Act there has been considerable speculation that the police are at risk of placing the defendants under double jeopardy—being charged with one crime but detained for the purposes of another. That is unlawful as I understand it. The terrorism suppression legislation makes it quite clear that the Attorney-General’s consent is required before a charge may be laid against a person. The time period is not specified yet natural justice must surely act against unreasonable delay in challenging a continued remand in custody. 
Finally I want to refer to the codes of secrecy that have led to such uncertainties around this week. Many of the submitters noted their concerns in the bill about issues of procedural fairness and about the human rights of designated persons in relation to the use of classified security information in court. The key message coming through from this week has been to query why people have been remanded into legal custody without being given reasons for the deprivation of their liberty—a legal right dating back to the Magna Carta. But it appears that no reasons have been given as yet despite repeated requests by legal counsel. 
We think it is important to note that although the general emphasis of this bill is focused on the threat of international terrorism the assumption that tangata whenua have been making this last fortnight is that it very clearly can also be applied to attack the activist cause across our domestic law. This bill seeks to create a climate of fear around anyone who supports liberation struggles and the fight for justice democracy and human rights whether in Aotearoa or offshore. 
This Parliament and the citizens of this country must be alert to the fact that any concept of democracy and free speech in Aotearoa given the events of the past week is very much at risk. This bill is a fresh attack on our civil liberties our human rights and the continuing story of injustice against injustice in opposing indigenous rights. We in the Maori Party oppose the bill in our strongest rejection of this Government yet.