Third Readings

I move, That the Crimes Amendment Bill, the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 2), the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill, the Sentencing Amendment Bill, and the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill be now read a third time. These are important bills. They reflect New Zealand’s need domestically and internationally to be able to respond effectively to the investigation, detection, and prosecution of terrorist activity. These bills were preceded by the Terrorism Suppression Act, which implemented resolution 1373, and also two international conventions relating to terrorist bombing and financing.

The bills contain a number of terrorist-related offences such as participating in, or recruiting members of, terrorist groups. They also contain procedures for the designation of terrorist entities and the freezing of their assets. The bills implement two further international conventions relating to nuclear material and unmarked plastic explosives, which are the final two of the 12 terrorism-related international instruments with which New Zealand is required to comply. The other measures in the bills are recommendations arising from a whole-of-Government review of possible gaps in New Zealand law that could be exploited by terrorists, which have become a serious international problem following the attack on the World Trade Center and, of course, more recently in Bali.

In a couple of respects, these bills ensure that New Zealand has in place a comprehensive package of anti-terrorism measures. We are now fully compliant with UN requirements in this area in the event that it becomes necessary, domestically, to deal with planned or executed terrorist offending. The bills include a number of offence and penalty provisions and investigative powers. In addition, the Government is progressing other initiatives that have a bearing on this issue—for example, in relation to border control.

The bills contain the following new offences to deal with the kind of offending likely to be committed by terrorists: improperly dealing with nuclear material, radioactive material, or unmarked plastic explosives; harbouring or concealing a person who has carried out, or intends to carry out, terrorist activity; causing sickness or disease in animals; intending to endanger the health or safety of an animal population, and causing major economic damage; contaminating products such as food, water, or crops intended for human consumption; intending to harm one or more persons, or cause major economic damage; threatening to do an act that is likely to cause major risk to persons, property, or the economy, and intending to significantly disrupt the civilian population, or infrastructure, or the administration of Government or commercial interests.

The bills make terrorism an aggravating factor for the sentencing of criminal acts generally. When murder occurs as a result of terrorist activity, there will be a presumption in favour of 17 years’ minimum non-parole, and that will be only the starting point. A judge will be able to impose a longer term than 17 years if he or she feels it is justified.

The bills provide for the following investigative powers to ensure that law enforcement agencies can effectively investigate offences that may be committed by terrorists, as well as other serious criminal offending. Firstly, the use of tracking devices by police and customs officers. There are safeguards around the exercise of this power, such as warrant requirement and obligations to report on the extent to which such devices are used. Secondly, a requirement on persons to assist computer access in the course of a warranted police search by providing reasonable and necessary access information, such as the computer password. Thirdly, evidence of serious criminal offending, including terrorism, lawfully obtained by interception warrant, will be admissible even if the warrant was issued in relation to a different offence—provided that the offence of which evidence is obtained is one for which a warrant could have been issued.

These investigative powers are not limited to terrorist offending, and there are two very good reasons for this. The first is an issue of principle. Terrorist offences are not a separate class of criminal offences. They are the same acts—murder, bombing, property damage, and unlawful possession of restricted weapons, for example, but committed with a political, ideological, or religious motive. In the criminal law, motive—the reason why the offence is committed—is only relevant to sentence. There is therefore no justification for particular powers to investigate terrorism that are not equally applicable to other serious criminal offending. The second reason is purely practical. It will not always be possible to identify, before an investigation commences, or even during it, whether particular criminal activity has a terrorist motive. Drug smuggling, for example, may occur to finance a terrorist act, but this is unlikely to be initially apparent.

The Terrorism Suppression Act provides for the property of designated terrorist entities to be frozen. This bill includes two related measures. It gives customs the power to intercept and detain property crossing the New Zealand border, where there is good cause to suspect that the property is owned or controlled by a designated terrorist entity, or an entity that is eligible for designation. This is to prevent, for example, cash being carried over the border that would be frozen if it were in a bank account. Secondly, the bill provides that the details of already designated terrorist entities can be updated in accordance with new information provided to New Zealand by the United Nations. This is essential for anyone, including financial institutions, who is attempting to reliably identify whether an entity with whom they are dealing has been designated.

Many of the submissions on this bill emphasised the importance of allowing innocent persons to go about their lawful business. Unfortunately, it is a reality in these times that terrorism is one of the greatest threats to that right. Quite rigorous measures that have as their goal the suppression of terrorism may therefore be justified, and this is internationally recognised. However, this Government has been careful in the development of this legislation to take into account concerns on the other side of the equation—specifically, the need, in attempting effectively to address terrorism, not to institute measures that themselves would have an unduly restrictive effect on the activities of innocent persons.

In conclusion, this bill ensures that New Zealand has done what is necessary to implement the final two of the 12 terrorism-related international instruments with which we are required to comply, and is therefore fully internationally compliant. The legislation contains offence and penalty provisions to ensure that should a terrorist act occur in this country, we will effectively be in a position to prosecute those responsible. It creates new investigative powers with a view to ensuring that acts of that kind can be detected and prevented before they have a chance to occur. I consider that this bill strikes an appropriate balance between robust and responsible measures to deal with terrorism and protecting civil rights. I commend the bill to the House.

National supports the legislation, soon to be Acts, and we recognise that it does represent New Zealand adopting a whole network of conventions. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade noted earlier, there are 12 of them. I appreciate that some people do have concerns about networks of conventions, but I want to put on record that as a nation we do make common cause with the international community in this. In many respects the United Nations still represents the only effective mechanism whereby the community of nations can come together to represent its abhorrence against international terrorism, and do it by conventions drafted by the most learned international lawyers and specialists in the world. It is right that New Zealand does adopt those conventions.

I also want to put on record that I found it truly extraordinary that earlier this evening the Green Party could vote for the two conventions in the schedule, but not do anything that would enable them to become part of the domestic law of New Zealand. If Mr Locke had understood our constitutional framework, he would appreciate that one has to vote for the domestic legislation represented by Part 2 in order for the international conventions to have any effect whatsoever.

I also want to refer to the fact that, very recently, the leaders of the Asia-Pacific nations at the APEC conference recognised the linkage between defeating terrorism and economic prosperity. The reality is that liberty and prosperity cannot thrive in a climate of fear. The objective of the terrorist is to have ordinary citizens, communities, and nations under the yoke of fear. It is a terrorist’s desire that doing so would create a climate of fear and repression. That does impose a challenge to democratic countries to find that balance between protecting our freedoms through defeating terrorism—and I stress that we have to defeat terrorism to protect our freedoms—but at the same time not legislating away those very freedoms that are the reason we are trying to defeat terrorism. I believe that the legislation does not do that, and that the fears raised by the opponents of the legislation are fundamentally misplaced. They read into the motivations of our community, the police, the courts, and this Parliament that they are agents of repression out to deny the liberty of subjects, rather than serving the interests of our community, and I have to say that is such a flawed approach.

National does believe that issues of this nature should be done on a bipartisan basis. It is important that Parliament as a whole expresses our defence of our basic freedoms. Those are things that should unite the parties across the House—the fundamentals of our society—and on those kinds of issues there should be an overwhelming position of support. On some provisions, at least, one would think that there would be unanimous consent. Even if there are some questions, people should be able to put those aside and recognise the bigger goal.

I also say that defeating terrorism requires that we work with friends and allies. I acknowledge that the Government has done much of that, but I also say that there are caveats. This is a Government that still believes—and has said so, through the Prime Minister—that there is a benign strategic environment. That is false. The strategic environment is not benign. It does not matter if Government members say: “Oh, we mean it at a State level.” I ask Government members what they think was happening in the Solomons. Was that just a few people off to one side, or was the very integrity of the State of the Solomons at risk? Surely they would recognise that it was. Similarly, in relation to Afghanistan, the very integrity of the State was at risk. The issue of a benign strategic environment is not just about a few extreme elements; it is about the fabric of unstable States threatening other nations.

It is necessary that we look at the tools we have to defeat terrorism. I refer to our Defence Force, which is not properly equipped. It is all very well for the Government to say: “What about when National was in office during those 9 years? You didn’t do enough.” The first thing members should recollect is that the beginning of the National Government represented the end of the cold war. Every single Western nation—in fact, probably every nation—reduced defence expenditure during that period. Most nations then learnt the lesson that they had gone too far, so by 1997-98 there was a build back. We are different; we have not done that. Our defence expenditure is now only 1 percent of gross domestic product, and going down.

Members on the Government side of the House may say that we are still doing enough, but let me put these facts to them. Earlier this year, the Government deployed the two Anzac frigates to the Gulf of Oman. We all saw the photographs on television of the two frigates, side by side, in the Gulf of Oman. That meant that there were no frigates at all in New Zealand. The point of that is that the deployment was about defeating terrorism, and we denuded New Zealand. Surely, a sensible Government would have taken some lessons from that and realised that it had gone too far; that our defence assessments of 1999-2000 were done in a different environment, and we have to spend more. The Army is a similar case. Is a two-battalion Army, which was perhaps realistic in the 1990s, realistic today, given the pressure on our defence forces?

We do say, on our side of the House, that passing the legislation is a good thing—we need it—but we also have to take the practical steps to build our defence forces, so that we can work effectively in cooperation with long-standing friends and allies—Australia, the United States, and Britain—and so that we can make the proper contribution. Far too many people are saying that we do not.

I close on one point. Why has the Government not designated Hizbollah as a terrorist organisation, when Australia has done so? Why have our two countries, on something as fundamental as who is a terrorist, taken different paths? So I want to say, yes, the legislation is good, but we do have serious caveats and things of that nature. The designations and the state of our defence forces say there is a good deal more that has to be done, if the Government is serious about defeating terrorism in concert with friends and allies. We look forward to when there can be a bipartisan approach on those things as well.

I am pleased to rise in support of this bill and I am delighted to commend it to the House.

That speech is what rates some MPs, by the Sunday Star-Times’ account—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Come to the bill.

Well, that speech was about the bill. This bill is the Counter-Terrorism Bill, and I note with absolute amazement that the previous speaker had only about six words to say about it. New Zealand First has worked with Government members on this bill, and I say it is worth considerably more than the six or seven words that the member had to say about it, but I guess that is what will get him voted back in again next time round. I have to say a couple of things.

💬 David Benson-Pope: What’s that member’s electorate majority?

Since the member asked—watch this space. That sort of arrogance from Alf Garnett over there will bring about the demise of the Labour Party. That member can take full credit for the diminishing vote that is occurring to his party right now, and the vote that is swinging across our way. While that member sits there throwing comments like that across the House, he is displaying his absolute, upper-class arrogance, which he is becoming renowned for. He is so out of touch with traditional Labour people. We will reap the benefits, and I say to that member in response to his question, watch this—

💬 David Benson-Pope: Winston and his national socialist party.

The member himself is a representative of the people’s democratic socialist republic that they are ramming down the throats of ordinary New Zealanders. That member is displaying precisely the sort of arrogance that we love to see because it is helping us close the gap, every day.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Will the member come back to the bill.

He challenged me across the floor.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I know, but that is no reason to—

OK, but he deserves a good slap. This bill is good legislation. We have supported it all the way through. It is quite lengthy. It is over 2 years since 9/11 and the attack on the twin towers. It is just over 1 year since the bombing in Bali, so I have to say to those members who said that this bill has been rushed and is being passed in haste, I do not think so. There are many who would say that, given the spate of bombings that we have witnessed in the last 6 months around the world, in actual fact the bill has been a little slow in coming—but it is here. It adds to the Terrorism Suppression Act, which dealt with financing and bombing. It deals with such things as threats to persons, threats to the economy, and the harbouring of terrorists. It increases powers of investigation, powers of search, and powers of seizure. It bestows upon authorities greater privileges and rights in terms of tracking and monitoring.

However, there is one thing that I have to say. This entire piece of work will be meaningless, and this Government will be judged over the next period—however long it remains in power, probably 2 years, maybe 1½ years—on the effectiveness of this legislation at the front end, at the sharp end, if enough resources are not made available. We have seen a lot of legislation go through this House—legislation that we in New Zealand First have supported, such as this, which we felt was good legislation—but which has been rendered toothless and meaningless by the Government’s inability to place in the hands of the people responsible for giving effect to this legislation the adequate resources to do so. We sit here and wax lyrical about drug dealers, drug traffickers, and how they finance terrorism.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)