Counter-Terrorism Bill

Members and the public would think that a bill entitled the Counter-Terrorism Bill would be an accurate description of its purpose. Indeed, in part it is. National is supporting this bill, and its implementation of the conventions on plastic explosives—chemical tracing thereof, Semtex—and also the nuclear proliferation issue. Those are perfectly laudable things to do, and one would expect them to be in a bill about counter-terrorism. The question I have for the Minister, and I would like him to rise to speak to this because it is an issue that was dealt with at length by the—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Can I remind the member that we are dealing with the title. It is a very narrow debate, and the member must stick to the title.

Madam Chairperson, if you had not interrupted me you would have perceived precisely the point I am about to make. One would think that a bill entitled the Counter-Terrorism Bill would be confined to that.

The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee raised the issue with the Minister as to why this bill had some much wider provisions relating to the Crimes Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act. Those provisions may be desirable in their own right and, indeed, as the Minister has said in the past, some of them are related to counter-terrorism—the need for tracking devices, and things of that nature. The concern, however, is this. The title should be accurate. It should direct members of Parliament, and especially members of the public, to the purpose of the bill—what it is actually about—and it does not.

Certainly part of the bill is about counter-terrorism, but part of it is about general amendments to the criminal law. Submissions were made by the Law Society, in particular, and by various specialists, who presented to the select committee. Members in the Chamber who were at the select committee will know what I am talking about when I say that the broader issues had to be drawn to their attention. They received, at best, cursory attention, except when they had to put in supplementary submissions. That is simply not good enough. The Minister should take on board the injunction from the select committee.

I would like the Minister to speak on this point, to assure the Committee that this kind of practice will not continue—that bills will be more accurately described—and that a bill that has general propositions about the criminal law, as desirable as they might be, is not nevertheless described only as the Counter-Terrorism Bill. Why, for instance, did we not get a title that said something like “Counter-Terrorism and Amendments to the Crimes Act Bill”? That would have been a more accurate description.

Members may ask why I have not put in a Supplementary Order Paper to that effect. Well, frankly, it would be pointless. The time for that is at the introduction of the bill, not at this stage of the process. I am not going to put in an amendment. It would be too late. This is about directing the information to the public and to members at the time of the bill’s introduction, not about what we do in the Committee of the whole House, and not about what the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper does, which is to divide the bill into separate components. That is all necessary and desirable, but it does not address this central concern.

I am concentrating on this issue because I think an important point of parliamentary procedure is that it is the Government’s duty to properly inform the public what bills are about. National does support the measures. We broadly support not just the counter-terrorism measures, but also amendments to the Crimes Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act. What we are concerned about, however, is this creeping habit—one born of arrogance—that says the Government does not have to inform the public and can do just what it likes.

My speech will probably help the previous speaker, Wayne Mapp. He said that he did not move an amendment to the title, but I have moved an amendment to the title, which I think he will vote for because it does accommodate his concern. The amendment is to delete the words “Counter-Terrorism” in the title and replace them with the words “Crimes Amendment and Counter-Terrorism”. It is then clear to anyone reading the bill that it concerns both issues. As Wayne Mapp pointed out, there are not only amendments to the Terrorism Suppression Act—that is, amendments relating to terrorism or counter-terrorism—but there are also amendments to the Crimes Act, the Summary Proceedings Act, and the Misuse of Drugs Act. I hope that the title I have proposed will meet with the approval of the Committee, because it is more appropriate. As indicated in the second reading speeches by Wayne Mapp and also by Peter Dunne, there was concern in the select committee that the bill tried to incorporate two quite different things—namely, an amendment to our criminal legislation and amendments to the Terrorism Suppression Act.

Unfortunately, I was not able to get the committee to agree to split the bill into two. There was a clear interest to split it into two, and have one bill dealing specifically with amendments to the Terrorism Suppression Act, and the other bill dealing with amendments to the other three criminal Acts that I referred to. It would have been important for the whole process of discussion, because I do not think we got quite the number of submitters, particularly on amendments to the criminal legislation, that we might have had if the bill had been correctly titled. People may not have realised that there were so many general amendments to criminal legislation under a bill called the Counter-Terrorism Bill.

An additional problem is that when general amendments are incorporated into the criminal law, under the Counter-Terrorism Bill, people are scared off a bit from critically examining them. One of the phenomena today, in the post - September 11 environment, is that people are scared of being seen as soft on terrorism. They are a bit more scared to look at any changes that come forward under that title, for fear that they will be deemed to be soft on terrorism. The case of Ahmed Zaoui that is going on in New Zealand right now is an illustration of why an amendment should have been made to the title at the beginning, as Wayne Mapp indicated.

It is true that for a long time people were scared to look closely at the Ahmed Zaoui case and discuss it in the public arena because they might get linked up with that guy, he might turn out to be a terrorist, and then they would be labelled as supporting terrorists. It was only in the months after he was imprisoned last December, and as the debate has proceeded, that people have been a bit more confident in coming out into the open and saying perhaps it was wrong that the security risk certificate procedure could override and cancel the refugee status determination proceedings at the level of the refugee status branch. The Refugee Status Appeals Authority can be overridden by the secret procedure of the Minister of Immigration in her putting down the security risk certificate on Ahmed Zaoui, and then the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, operating in secret and not even giving Mr Zaoui or his lawyers any information on what the accusations are against him, can determine his future and perhaps send him back to torture, and possible death, under the Algerian regime that he fled from many years ago.

I think that is an indication of the problem of putting things under a title like “Counter-Terrorism” We also see that in the United States. Generally, its criminal law has a lot of checks and balances and a Bill of Rights to back it up, but one can look at Guantanamo Bay and at the abuse of due process and civil liberties in that area, under the guise of counter-terrorism. About 650 people are sitting in Guantanamo Bay, and a lot of them have been there for a couple of years. They could be there indefinitely. I think it was US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who said that they might be there until the war against terrorism is over.

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.

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.

I would like to follow up some of the points made by the previous speaker about the title of the Counter-Terrorism Bill, and whether “counter-terrorism” is an appropriate term. I took a very moderate approach in my first speech. I wanted to address the main issue of two different types of bill being incorporated into one, with disadvantages for the public and for Parliament. The question posed is also whether this bill will really put counter-terrorism into effect—that is, really opposing and reducing the incidence of terrorism throughout the world, and particularly in the Islamic world, which has most of the instances of terrorism at the present time.

One of the criticisms that have been made, including by submitters on this bill and on its predecessor, the Terrorism Suppression Bill, is that the definition of terrorism in the Terrorism Suppression Act is much too broad. It does not target only people who support those who use violence against and create terror amongst civilians; it also covers, within the very broad definition of terrorism in that Act, people who seriously disrupt an infrastructure facility in a way likely to endanger human life. One does not even need to intend to endanger human life to be covered under that definition. All that one needs to do is to fulfil two other criteria: first, to unduly compel a Government to do something—which many politicians are accused of—and, second, the motive has to be political, religious, or ideological. Richard Worth made a point about the singling out of politically motivated acts, and referred back to Matthew Palmer’s comments on that very question.

I find that rather strange, because sometimes a political motivation can lead to terror and very bad things that we all want to condemn. We have incidents in our own history, such as the 1981 Springbok tour, when people protested—including many members in this Chamber at the present time—and got involved in quite disruptive activity that could possibly be covered under this bill. The fact that they were doing it for a political reason—that is, they were against racial injustice and South African apartheid—was used in court in their favour. That is the reality. Other people do things for a religious reason in a positive, humanitarian way, in terms of non-violent civil disobedience. But if, in relation to real terrorism, we really want to have justice, we have to go back to treating all actions, in terms of this legislation, as being fundamentally the same if they have an intimidatory effect on a civilian population and cause real violence and death to people. The motivation is not what counts; it is the nature of the act and whether it is against what is, in effect, our criminal legislation. So do we need to have this layer of anti-terrorist offences on top of our criminal legislation?

Another amendment to the title that I could have put forward might have been the “Counter-Terrorism (Except State Terrorism) Bill”, because this bill and the preceding Terrorism Suppression Act target a particular form—killing, wounding, or inspiring fear in civilians—of terrorism: terror caused by non-State agents. We can see an example of that when we look at the recent terrorism in Indonesia. Everyone is very conscious of the horrific terrorist bombing in Bali that was commemorated recently. Everyone is very conscious of that terrorism and, rightly, very opposed to that. They welcome the fact that the perpetrators have been brought to justice and punished. We all agree on that. But within Indonesia there is another form of terrorism that kills, wounds, and maims many more people than in the Bali bombing did. That is not to excuse the Bali bombing, but to point out that in Aceh today the Indonesian Government, through its military, is terrorising the people of Aceh, killing many of them, and pushing many of them out of their homes and the places they live in. That form of terrorism is killing more people than the Bali bombing did. Terrorism cannot be balanced on a scale. We cannot say that the Bali terrorism is any better or any worse than that in Aceh, but in terms of the number of people killed, more have been killed in Aceh.

I move, That the question be now put.

The ACT party will be supporting the Counter-Terrorism Bill and its various derivatives. The debate on the appropriateness of the title is very interesting. It has gone along the path of whether it is the nature of the act or the motive of the perpetrator that defines something as terrorism, and that is a legitimate debate.

ACT certainly upholds the rights and freedoms of individuals, and in many respects would probably have views that are not too dissimilar to those of the Greens.

We also acknowledge the role of the State, and the powers of the State that are necessary to uphold those rights and freedoms. But that is where we can come to a dilemma: the powers of the State can reach a point where, in purporting to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals, they actually erode them. As legislators, I think we should always be very mindful of that fact when we give powers to the State, because there are some quite awesome powers that legislators give to various States, and some States do abuse those powers—that is reality.

But like it or not, the world has changed. We are in a war against terror, there are unforeseen consequences, and we need to play our part in it. It is important, though, that we do not get carried away with the rhetoric and the emotion of the time and overplay our hands. But there is no doubt in my mind—and certainly ACT’s position is quite clear: we support appropriate measures to give powers to our Government, in cooperation with other likeminded Governments, to combat what has become international terror, perpetrated on a planned, international scale. The scale on which that terror is now being enacted is something we have not seen before.

We note the various components the bill is being split into: the Crimes Amendment Bill, the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill, the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill, the Sentencing Amendment Bill, and also the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill. Each one of those is a sensible component, and we understand and support the reason for it being separated at this stage. However, I still have considerable reservations—and I suspect that the Minister in the chair does also—about the breadth and direction of these powers. I guess my plea to the Minister—and the ACT message to him—is to always remember the rightful role of the rights and freedoms of individuals and civil liberties. There is a point where excessive powers in the hands of the State will begin to trample on the rights and freedoms of individuals. That said, the ACT party supports this bill—not in its entirety, as my colleague has pointed out, but the overall direction of it.

Various comments have been made about the plight of Ahmed Zaoui with regard to this issue. On that issue, I do not have sufficient information, and I am not sure that anyone has. I think it is very dangerous for members of Parliament to leap to conclusions without adequate information. We are being denied access to that information, which is regrettable, so it comes back to having faith that the powers that be are exercising those powers judiciously and appropriately, although we can never be sure of that. But at face value, I am certainly not convinced that Mr Zaoui is a terrorist, as some would purport. The very fact that he is fleeing from a corrupt regime speaks volumes in itself. A very corrupt regime in Algeria has put him on the top of its wanted list, which I think is a useful example of the propensity for emotion to overrun logic and common sense.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. United Future members—and I know they are only new—have been attempting to get the call, and they have not had an opportunity to contribute to the debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The question has been accepted. The Clerk will conduct a party vote.

I do ask that you reflect upon the reasonableness of your decision, though, because the United Future party has not had an opportunity to contribute.

Clause 2 is the commencement provision of the Counter-Terrorism Bill, and National supports this bill and its enactment in the divided way that Supplementary Order Paper 163 proposes. But I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to what seems to be a clear anomaly in respect of clause 2, and to invite the Minister, who has a very detailed knowledge of this bill and all its intricacies, to make some short and relevant comment on what I now say.

There is no doubt that in the select committee process, which saw the bill looked at by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and reported on by it, it was seen as appropriate to significantly change clause 2. Subclauses (1) and (2) of the bill as introduced—which provided that clauses 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 of the principal Act and clause 13B of the Terrorism Suppression Act were to come into force on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council—were struck out. I ask the Minister why it was seen as appropriate to make the significant changes that the committee did, and why it is that the Minister supports, and the Government presumably supports, the changes that have been made. The select committee has now proposed that clauses 3 to 34 and the schedule come into force on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General, but there is also a note that one or more Orders in Council may appoint different dates for different provisions, and also a second provision that deals with other possibilities.

So if one looks at clauses 3 to 34 in the context of this bill, it is to be seen that they certainly spread across a large number of parts. For example, they are spread across Part 1, where amendments to the Crimes Act are numbered in clauses 3 to 8. Then in Part 2 we see a similar spread, with amendments being made to the Terrorism Suppression Act. In Part 3 there is a similar spread, with amendments being made to the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act, the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act, the Sentencing Act, and, finally, parts of the Summary Proceedings Act, before we come to clause 34, which inserts a raft of provisions relating to the important subject of tracking devices. I would like to ask the Minister why it has been seen as appropriate to have this significant change made in the bill.

I think the points Richard Worth has raised about the commencement date are important—that it is really left to Orders in Council and that we do not quite know what will go on. When it gets to the question of Orders in Council I hope that wisdom will prevail, because we do not want to rush into the commencement of the provisions in this bill. That is particularly important in this climate at the present time, when people—even members of Parliament—are getting so stirred up about terrorism in a way that it is affecting their rationality and ability to discuss questions of terrorism, or of who might or might not be a terrorist, in a rational way. So the longer the commencement date is extended the better, and I would prefer to have it in this commencement clause that none of the provisions will take effect for 5 years. That would give a proper cooling-down period—not only in New Zealand but around the world. We could take stock a little of some of the infringements of civil liberties in the name of the fight against terrorism—as we see in the matter of Guantanamo Bay, which I mentioned before—and there could be time for people to settle down and look at this whole issue in a calm way.

We have seen today an illustration of why the commencement date should be extended. People have been going on about Ahmed Zaoui, both in this debate and in question time, and trying to treat him and describe him as a terrorist when the good people on the Refugee Status Appeals Authority, who spent months on the matter, delivered a 223-page judgment that completely cleared him of all charges of terrorism. But there is an attitude out there, and amongst some people in the House, that those very skilled people in that area should not be taken account of, and that we should just say he is a terrorist. Another example of why the commencement date should be extended is that when one reads the newspapers one sees an example of the Ahmed Zaoui case again. When he was sent to Paremoremo prison in December last year, if one reads the papers of that time, there was almost an assumption that he was a terrorist. He had been called a terrorist, so there was an assumption he was a terrorist. That is the climate we are acting in at the present time, so we should not have an early commencement date.

The police themselves got all carried away in that matter—and they are supposed to be the enforcers of our law. They looked up a website of a chap called Lyndon LaRouche, an extreme right-wing nutter who has run for US President, is a conspiracy theorist, and all the rest of it. The New Zealand Police tapped in their computers and in their security risk certificate for Ahmed Zaoui on 11 December last year, they told people to look at that LaRouche site to find out that Ahmed Zaoui was a terrorist. Of course, Lyndon LaRouche was just regurgitating the propaganda of the Algerian regime—a murderous regime that had sentenced him to death in absentia.

💬 Jim Peters: What about the French court?

That is a good call from Jim Peters, on my right. The French court is an interesting case. In the year 2000, I think it was—

💬 Richard Worth: 2001.

In 2001 French court officials said they would have a go at Ahmed Zaoui for something that he and a few other people were supposed to have done in 1993. They tried to make out that he was involved in some terrorist conspiracy. Did they notify Ahmed Zaoui—who was readily obtainable—that he was being brought before a French court 7 or 8 years after that alleged event? No, they did not inform him. Did they give him any chance to defend himself? No. What was the nature of the charges? They were gone through by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority in great detail, and found to be completely wanting. That was the reality. When in the French court they did convict him, did they say they would extradite the guy to go back to France? No, they said they would give him a suspended sentence—hardly what they would do for a real terrorist.

It was not a process of justice, and the Refugee Status Appeals Authority got all the evidence together, talked to all the people who knew something about the situation, and decided that it was a completely phoney process of justice. I think it is an illustration of my point.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I remind members again that this is a debate on the commencement clause.

The Chairperson is right; this debate is on the commencement clause. I am not sure, from the previous speech, what Mr Ahmed Zaoui had to do with this, but I do want to speak very briefly about his case, because as a number of members will know—certainly, Mr Locke—I have had a little to say about it over the last few weeks. It is important that some of the facts come out—facts that are on the public record.

Ahmed Zaoui was convicted in Belgium after a 5-day hearing—a bit like a District Court or High Court hearing in New Zealand—of having associations with the Armed Islamic Group (GIA). He was then sentenced and deported. He went to Switzerland and was deported from there. He was convicted in absentia in France. Well, perhaps, that is a questionable procedure, but the key point is that he was convicted after a full hearing in Belgium. Yet the Refugee Status Appeals Authority felt that it could sit in New Zealand and adopt some kind of appeal court process for Belgian proceedings. In the absence of any evidence out of Belgium, was the prosecution evidence from Belgium presented in New Zealand? The answer is no, because there was no evidence from the prosecution in Belgium. We effectively had the Refugee Status Appeals Authority acting, in practical terms, only on information from the defence. I guess that if one hears only from the defence, one may well believe them.

But there is a more serious issue here, and all the defenders of Mr Ahmed Zaoui neglect it entirely. In New Zealand we have a two-stage process. The first is the issue of the national security risk certificate. It is worth bearing in mind that Mr Zaoui is not a resident, or a citizen, but a person who entered New Zealand illegally, and we are entitled in this country to ask whether people who enter our country constitute a national security risk. After the certificate is issued we go further. We then have a special procedure that is dealt with by an independent person, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. That person is not a bureaucrat, I might add, but a highly respected, retired High Court judge, whose job it is to assess independently the issuance of that certificate. I am on the record, as are others, as saying the decision of that person, Justice Greig, should be the determinant of the case, and that he should be able to be left alone to get on with his job. He is appointed for that very purpose.

One would think, on hearing from Mr Locke, that Mr Zaoui’s lawyers cannot make submissions to the Inspector-General, but they can. Further, we heard in the Chamber today that there is a synopsis of what has occurred against Mr Zaoui. So I think it is important that we stick to the facts, but recognise that in the case of Mr Zaoui we let the proper processes take place and he gets an independent assessment from the Inspector-General.

It is wrong for those who support him—Mr Locke and Mr Robson—to pretend that we do not have fair processes. We do.

This country has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars—through legal aid, through a lengthy hearing in the Refugee Status Appeals Authority, and now, before the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—taking Mr Zaoui’s interests into account. But, more important, given that he is not a resident or citizen, we should be taking the interests of this nation into account. This is not the time to look at these issues through rose-coloured glasses. We have to take a realistic approach. I trust retired High Court Judge Greig to do the right thing, and Mr Locke should do likewise. That decision should be determinative. I do not expect Mr Locke to say, should the decision be adverse to Mr Zaoui, that we should then continue to defend him. The question here is whether we trust our institutions to protect public safety.

Let me start by saying that we are discussing—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): We are talking about the commencement date.

Yes, that is what I thought. We were talking about clause 2, “Commencement”, but with Mr Locke having opened up with such a tirade, he has expanded the debate under the normal conventions, allowing people such as Mr Mapp to respond. I simply want to make one comment on the Zaoui case—the case that Mr Locke outlined in his argument against the commencement date. From where New Zealand First stands, Mr Zaoui would not be causing any discussion, any debate, or any conjecture as to whether he is a terrorist, had he been dealt with as the illegal entrant into this country that he is—end of story.

Mr Zaoui came here with some documents, trashed them, presented himself without documentation, and claimed political asylum and refugee status. Mr Zaoui should have been put on the first aircraft back to the country from whence he came, and we would not be wasting time and taxpayer dollars debating the merits of his perceived case. That is precisely where I stand on that issue. I cannot for the life of me understand how Mr Locke can go out there and talk to people about how they do not get adequate funding to pay for free health-care for children under 6—they are all having to shell out of their pockets now—while, at the same time, Mr Zaoui is consuming hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of legal aid, of SIS time, of court time, and of jail time, all courtesy of the taxpayer.

It is interesting looking at the commencement date, and I would like the Minister, if he has a moment, to take a call. The Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper refers to sections 10 to 23 being deferred and coming into force on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. The remaining provisions will come into force on the day after the date on which the Act receives the royal assent. What does that mean? If we look at the wording in clauses 10 to 23, we notice straight up that we are looking at amendments to the principal Act, that being the Terrorism Suppression Act. People need to remember that this bill enhances, and makes some modifications to, the Terrorism Suppression Act, to make it more effective. Mr Locke has suggested that we should defer the commencement date by 5 years. I ask members of the Committee to take a quiet moment to read clauses 10 to 23, and consider for a moment the impact on our ability to deal with the suppression of terrorism if we deferred this bill for another 5 years. We are talking about improving the principal Act by adding reference to the Nuclear Material Convention and the Plastic Explosives Convention—conventions that we have signed up to, conventions that we have pledged to support, and that we have passed legislation to ratify and make meaningful.

I say to the Minister, what are the implications of deferring the bill for 5 years? Can the Minister help enlighten Mr Locke as to what the implications of a deferment for 5 years would be? Clause 11, “Interpretation”, states: “Section 4 of the principal Act is amended by inserting, in their appropriate alphabetical order, the following definitions: ‘duly authorised military device means an explosive article, including, but not restricted to, shell, bomb—’ ”. We are talking about clauses that I understand are essential in enhancing the Terrorism Suppression Act and making it more meaningful and effective, and to allow us to comply with previous conventions that we as a nation have agreed to.

The notion that we can sit here and breathe through our noses and take time to reflect, ponder, and gaze at our navels, whilst we allow people to “calm down and overcome their fears of terrorism”—unduly founded, as Mr Locke would have us believe—is nonsensical. In the very short time of less than 2 years since the attacks on the twin towers, we have seen bombing incidents all over the world, and terrorism—far from decreasing—is increasing. Soft targets such as New Zealand are considered lambs to the slaughter by people who would further their own political agendas around the world, and there will come a time, as other countries harden their internal defence systems, when places like New Zealand will be seen as the only attractive and viable target.

Very briefly, the vast majority of this bill will come into effect as soon as the royal assent is achieved for the Act. However, there are two areas that will come into effect when there is an Order in Council—those are clauses 3 to 7, and clauses 10 to 23. The common-sense reason is that structures need to be put in place, and regulations need to be drawn up, before we can practically implement them, but they will be implemented as soon as possible. There is no question of those provisions being delayed unnecessarily, and certainly not for 5 years. These are measures needed to counter terrorism and other forms of serious crime.

The amendment provision gives us the time to think about whether we are panicking, or whether we are rushing. The ACT party believes that clearly there are sensible things that every country must do about terrorism, that evil is real, and that people who do not care about the innocents they hurt in the cause of securing their political objectives are a special kind of threat. The normal response of criminal law to these people should properly take account of the fact that they prey on victims with whom they have no natural connection, who would not normally be seen as targets, and who can therefore feel a particular horror about being victims.

On the other hand, the ACT party is concerned about some of the same factors that Keith Locke raised on behalf of the Greens, though not the concerns about Ahmed Zaoui—the commencement could not come quick enough for us if it related to Ahmed Zaoui. I think the supposition that the Greens and other defenders act on is that he has some kind of entitlement to be here, and, in ACT’s opinion, only New Zealanders have a right to be here. Anyone else is on a privilege, and there is no requirement to extend that privilege simply because someone claims to be a refugee. That is grace and favour, and Mr Zaoui has abused our hospitality.

Coming back to the commencement, I wish that it were being delayed, because I think it is almost inevitable that, in a passion, we do things to our own law that we should not be doing. I look, for example, at the new offence of causing disease or sickness in animals. It looks to me as if someone from the Green Party, for example, could make it an offence to sterilise possums with GM. I know that that is never intended, but the problem is that when people are legislating in a passion, they take these well-meant words and do not look at them closely, simply because there is a panic and a rush to get new powers, or to at least look as if they are trying to give new powers. I use the new clause 298A about causing disease or sickness in animals as an example. At first sight, it could actually make it an offence to spray mosquitoes, but, of course, that is not likely to cause major damage.

But it certainly could be that that clause might one day be used for political purposes to confront people like the Greens who have a genuine concern about a proposed response to an animal pest and, therefore, the criminal law could be misused. It is not fanciful. In the United States a law against mob racketeers has been misapplied in all sorts of spheres, including throughout the securities industry. The “RICO Act”, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act, has been very much misapplied.

Another example of haste is new section 307A, “Threats of harm to people or property” inserted by clause 7. It looks to me as though anti-smokers could be targets, or perhaps people against certain drugs or drug companies, because they will intend to disrupt the commercial activity of a particular kind, and it could be argued that they will, therefore, create a health risk to one or more people. That is just the kind of unintended consequence that a long delay in the commencement could be used to iron out. The Minister should take that on board.

The Minister is aware that I am equally concerned that, unintentionally, he has put hurdles in the path of people who want to use surveillance cameras. If members care to look at the definition of “tracking device” they will find that it covers a surveillance camera, and, as I read it, that says that from now on if the police want to cooperate with a supermarket or even someone who wants to know where his own vehicles are going, they have to go and get a High Court warrant to do it. It is an intrusion on anti-crime effort, and that is a consequence of well-meaning people looking at law in haste and not examining it properly.

The commencement clause should be delayed, and the power to defer by Order in Council should be used in order to go back through this in the cold light of day and examine why we would want to ban the use of surveillance cameras without a High Court warrant, which the legislation appears to do. I normally deplore commencement clauses that depend on a ministerial decision or on the Order in Council process. In this case, delay would be desirable.

I move, That the question be now put.