Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2)

, on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has recommended that the bill be passed with no amendments. The bill is necessary to ensure that the status of terrorist entities designated as such under the Act does not expire. That would have placed New Zealand in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions. Not to pass this bill would be to leave no legal sanction against those who might support organisations such as al-Qaeda.

The Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 was passed in the wake of the horrific events of 11 September 2001. At the time, the nature and the extent of the terrorism phenomenon was still unclear, as was how the international obligations emerging from the UN Security Council in response to those events might be interpreted and implemented. The Act was an appropriate response at the time.

But equally, it was recognised that the provisions in the Act would need to be kept under review and amended where necessary, in the light of experience and the rapidly evolving international environment. As a result this is the second amendment bill to be put before the House since the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 was enacted.

There is also provision for the Act to be reviewed by a select committee and reported back by 1 December 2005. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has already begun its review, and I look forward to its report by the end of this year. Notwithstanding that review, the current bill introduces measures that are needed before the completion of the review. In particular, two measures in the bill need to be implemented in order for New Zealand to comply fully with its international obligations. These are the creation of a specific terrorist financing offence relating to the funding of terrorist entities, and the extension of the current terrorist designations made pursuant to the Act.

Clause 4 creates a new offence of directly or indirectly financing terrorist entities, as opposed to terrorist acts. The creation of this offence will make New Zealand more compliant with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, as well as the Financial Action Task Force Special Recommendation II. Compliance with these internationally agreed measures is critical to ensuring that New Zealand does not become, and cannot be seen to become, a country through which funding support for terrorist groups can be channelled.

The committee expressed some concern regarding the scope of this offence. Some concerns were expressed that the scope could capture an offence or be used maliciously to allege an offence of funding a terrorist entity, when the donor, in fact, believed he or she was funding, or intended to fund, legitimate human rights or humanitarian or democratic rights groups. Having given serious consideration to these concerns, the committee was satisfied, as I am, that neither the intent nor the wording of the offence would catch persons who provide or collect funds for groups with no connection to terrorist activity. Nor will it risk criminalising the unwitting donation of funds to terrorist entities, for example, via a terrorist group’s apparently legitimate front organisation.

To be captured by the new offence a person must intend that the money provided or raised will directly or indirectly benefit an entity that he or she knows carries out terrorist acts. This is a significant burden for the prosecution to satisfy in any particular case. In addition, any prosecution for the offence, as with all offences under the Act, will require the consent of the Attorney-General. Together these factors ensure that only those who it can be proved have knowingly and wilfully supported terrorists will be captured by the offence. Such people, of course, should have their actions criminalised, and that is what this bill does.

The committee also discussed the application of the “avoidance of doubt” provision contained in section 8 of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002. It is arguable that the effect of this provision needs further consideration, but the issues involved in that consideration are somewhat wider than the limited matters being addressed immediately through this bill. The committee’s broader view of the Act provides a more suitable forum for that consideration and any recommendations arising from it.

The second substantive amendment in the bill extends the October 2005 expiry date applying to 318 terrorist entities as designated under the Act. When the Act was originally passed it was not known for how long the initial designations of terrorist groups, made by the United Nations Security Council, would remain current. For that reason the initial designations were given an expiry date, and a process for review and extension of individual designations was established. Nearly 3 years on, all the entities are still United Nations Security Council designations—none have been removed from its list. However, the Act does not presently allow us to bring one application to the High Court for all of the UN designations to be extended. This means that 318 individual applications for review and extension would be needed. The time and resource implications for the High Court in such an exercise would be enormous.

It is clear that there is simply insufficient time to extend so many designations in this way. Allowing the designations of groups such as al-Qaeda as terrorist entities to expire and New Zealand to become non-compliant with the United Nations Security Council resolution is not an option. Instead, the bill extends the expiration date for the current terrorist designations for a period of 2 years following the report of the select committee on its broader review of the Act. This time frame will provide the committee with the time needed to fully examine the issue of terrorist designations and the review and extension process, and allow the Government sufficient time to examine and respond to any committee recommendations arising from its review. I commend this bill to the House.

This is quite a small bill in some ways, yet it is a very important one. The reason, as the Minister has just said, is that it amends the Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002, passed by this Parliament in order that New Zealand might implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 to combat global terrorism.

While the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee was examining this bill some very interesting issues arose, and I think the debate in this House tonight will be interesting, because the practice of what is usual in this House in terms of support or opposition differed on this bill in the select committee from being down the middle to, I guess, across the parties. The record will show that on this occasion both Labour and National supported this bill at the select committee, while New Zealand First and the Greens opposed it. It is unusual for New Zealand First to align itself with the Greens, but that is what happened.

Let me try to explain more clearly than the Minister did exactly what this bill does. The principal Act makes it illegal to give money to finance terrorism. Section 8(1) of the principal Act states: “A person commits an offence who, directly or indirectly, wilfully and without lawful justification or reasonable excuse, provides or collects funds intending that they be used, or knowing that they be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out 1 or more acts of a kind that, if they were carried out, would be 1 or more terrorist acts.” The problem with that section is that although it outlaws giving money that is to be used specifically for a terrorist act, it does not outlaw giving money to an organisation that is directly involved in terrorism—and knowing that the organisation was involved in terrorism. I think it is a clear omission that we missed when this Parliament passed the Act in 2002. Quite clearly, one could have a situation where the prosecution for someone who was caught financing a terrorist organisation could claim that the person was directly financing a terrorist act. It would seem that a defence could be mounted whereby, under the principal Act, the person could claim: “Oh no, I wasn’t. I was simply giving finance to an organisation that you claim is involved in terrorist activities, but I certainly wasn’t directly financing a terrorist act.”

It is important that such defence—any defence of that nature—is not possible. That is why clause 4 in Part 1 of this amendment bill broadens the provisions in section 8 of the principal Act to make it very clear that it will be a criminal offence not only to directly finance a terrorist act but also to knowingly finance an organisation involved in terrorism. I think that most members of this House would agree that that is a very important amendment, because it is fairly clear that we left a loophole in the principal Act when we passed it in 2002.

When considering this provision, a very interesting issue arose in relation to extending the criminality to knowingly financing a terrorist organisation—an extension beyond financing a terrorist act directly. Section 8(2) of the principal Act provides what could be called an out clause. It was inserted by the select committee considering the principal legislation back in 2002, because there was concern about someone collecting funds where it might be understood that those funds would be used for democratic purposes or the protection, the promotion, of human rights. The committee was concerned that if someone was involved in financing that kind of activity, then it wanted to make it very clear that that was very different from directly financing a terrorist act. So an out clause was inserted that is now section 8(2) in the principal Act.

What became very interesting in the consideration of the select committee this time round was that a number of submissions argued that the new section 8(2A) that clause 4 is bringing into the principal Act, should also have the same out clause that section 8(1) of the principal Act has. Section 8(1) of the principal Act outlaws directly financing a terrorist act. New section 8(2A) would outlaw financing a terrorist organisation. Section 8(2) has the out clause that states: “To avoid doubt, nothing in subsection (1) makes it an offence to provide or collect funds intending they be used, or knowing that they are to be used, for the purpose of advocating democratic government or the protection of human rights.” A number of submissions argued that that out clause should also be applied to new section 8(2A) in clause 4 of this amendment bill. The select committee decided, on advice from officials, not to have that out clause—section 8(2) in the principal Act—apply to new section 8(2A) in this amendment bill. That is a very significant decision by the select committee. It means that as the select committee goes on to review the principal Act, which it has to do under section 70 of the principal Act and is, in fact, doing right now, it will have to give a lot more thought to that out clause—that is, section 8(2) currently in the principal Act.

But the important thing in respect of this amendment bill we are debating tonight is that the out clause does not apply to new section 8(2A). I guess that is why New Zealand First, when it contributes to this debate, will argue against clause 4 inserting section 8(2A) into the principal Act. It will probably express the concern that the out clause should apply to it. The advice from officials to the select committee was very clear—namely, that there was a genuine concern that the effect of the out clause, as we call it, was not clear in law. It had not been tested, and there was a concern that someone involved in terrorist financing could get off the hook, given the out clause we put in the principal Act back in 2002. For that reason, it was decided not to apply it to new section 8(2A) in clause 4 of the amendment bill we are debating tonight. That is something that will be much debated this evening. It is an important issue. What we balance up are the issues around protecting New Zealanders and playing our part in protecting the world from terrorism versus concerns about individual human rights. That is the balance that this out clause sought to address in 2002. For very good reasons, both Labour and National members of the select committee, and the United Future chair, believed that the out clause should not be applied to new section 8(2A).

I shall cover the other major issue in this amendment bill, and it is an important issue. Part 2 extends the designation of terrorist entities. That is where I would be critical of the Government. My contribution to the equivalent debate of the principal legislation in 2002 pointed out the stupidity of having that 3-year limitation on the designations. Here tonight we are having to extend it. We put into the principal Act that the High Court had to review all those designations. That is a ridiculously bureaucratic procedure, as I pointed out back in 2002, and, as I said, this is where I would be critical of the Labour Government. It was a foolish inclusion in the principal Act. Now we are having to extend those designations and we still do not have a sensible way of reviewing them. All that we have done is to extend the time before the High Court has to do it. That is where I would be critical of the Government. It is a foolish measure that needs to be changed, because it is clearly unworkable. Those are the two major issues that we will be debating this evening.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the member who was speaking, because he was making some very good points. But I have to say, and he is not someone with a quiet voice, over the murmur of conversation in this Chamber it was actually very hard to hear him. I seek your assistance in ensuring that the debate that proceeds does proceed with a modicum of quiet in this place, because it is important. If members such as the member who has just spoken, who is not normally quiet, are hard to hear, then we have a problem.

Thank you. I agree with the member. Would those who wish to conduct a conversation please go outside.

Kia ora, talofa lava, and warm Pacific greetings. As a proud member of this Labour-led Government, and as deputy chair of our Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, it is indeed my pleasure to participate in the second reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2).

Before I address the contents of the bill, I want to provide a context for this very important legislation. The events of 11 September 2001 have been a big wake-up call for the international and global community to take collective responsibility and action to stop terrorism and the activities that support it. Our collective responsibility and action locally, nationally, regionally, and internationally are critical to stopping terrorism and all forms of abuse, and the action, or inaction, that supports it.

We can all learn from history and, indeed, history is in the making today. This Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) is one contribution that our Government and Parliament can make to stamping out terrorism. The bill amends the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, which states that a designation as a terrorist organisation expires after 3 years unless it is renewed by order of the High Court. That has created the unintended need for each designation to be renewed individually, but it will be impossible to renew all 318 United Nations Security Council - listed designations before they expire next October.

That means that New Zealand would be breaching United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, and related resolutions. So this bill will extend the expiry date by 2 years to 2007, and the extension will allow our select committee review of the Act—provided for, as Dr Lockwood Smith said, in section 70 of the principal Act—to consider fully what changes, if any, should be made to the renewal process in order for any resulting changes to be implemented. The bill also extends two sections of the Act that prohibit the financing of terrorist acts and designated terrorist entities, so that the provisions also cover the international financing of non-designated terrorist organisations.

The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has recommended that the bill be passed with no amendments. That is very necessary to ensure that terrorist entities designated as such under the Act do not expire.

This is the second amendment bill to be put before the House since the Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002 was enacted. There was also provision for the Act, as I said before, to be reviewed by our select committee, and in fact we are already conducting that review and heard a submission from the human rights commissioner this afternoon.

The two measures in the bill that need to be implemented in order for New Zealand to comply fully with its international obligations are the creation of a specific terrorist financing offence relating to the funding of terrorist entities, and the extension of the current terrorist designations that were made pursuant to the Act. Clause 4 also creates the new offence of the direct or indirect financing of terrorist entities as opposed to terrorist acts. Of course, the creation of that offence will make New Zealand fully compliant with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, as well as the Financial Action Task Force’s special recommendation. Compliance is critical to ensuring that New Zealand is not, and cannot be seen to become, a country through which funding support for terrorist groups can be channelled.

Dr Lockwood Smith alluded to the fact that the committee, as well as submitters, expressed some concern regarding the scope of the offence. Concern was also expressed that the scope could be used maliciously to allege an offence of funding a terrorist entity, when donors in fact believed or intended that they were funding legitimate humanitarian or democratic rights groups.

The committee gave very serious consideration to those concerns. With the great legal advice we received from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Ministry of Justice, we were satisfied that neither the intent nor the wording of the offence would catch persons who provided or collected funds for groups with no connection to terrorist activity.

The committee also discussed the application of the “avoidance of doubt” provision contained in section 8(2) of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002. In response to that provision, the committee’s broader review of the Act, which I referred to at the beginning of my speech, has provided a more suitable forum and time frame for us to give it serious consideration and to address some of its complexities.

Nearly 3 years on, all the entities are still United Nations security designations; none have been removed from that list. The time and resource implications for the High Court in such an exercise would be enormous. It is clear there is simply insufficient time to extend so many designations in that way. Allowing the designations of groups like al-Qaeda as terrorist entities to expire, so that New Zealand becomes non-compliant with the security resolution, is not an option. Instead, the bill extends the expiry date for current terrorist designations for a period of 2 years, following the report of our select committee on its broader review of the Act.

I will end how I began. The events of 11 September 2001 have been a big wake-up call for the international and global community to take collective responsibility and action to stop terrorism and the activities that support it. Our collective responsibility and action locally, nationally, regionally, and internationally are critical to stopping terrorism and all forms of abuse, and the action or inaction that support it. We can all learn from history, and indeed history is in the making today. This Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) is a contribution that our Government and Parliament can make to stopping all forms of terrorism.

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.

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?

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!

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.

I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak to the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2). Let me say immediately that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee is one of the select committees that the ACT party is not on; being a party of nine members we are not able to be on every committee. Therefore we are forced to listen to the debate and to make up our minds.

Let me just make a few observations to the House. The first is that we have to decide as a country whether we are supporting the United Nations resolutions on terrorism. It is my understanding that New Zealand First and the Green Party are strong supporters of the United Nations. I suspect that the ACT party probably has the most doubts about that organisation, but it appears to me, looking at the issue as it faces the world, that one is forced to line up and support the United Nations. It is interesting when one makes that observation—

💬 Dail Jones: If there is such a resolution.

Is the member suggesting that the Security Council has somehow produced this list—[Interruption] A submission has come to us from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I quote from the report of the member’s own select committee: “Proposed section 8(2A) implements NZ’s international legal obligations under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373.” We need to meet those obligations. That is the statement that the select committee has made to the House, and I have no reason to suppose that it is not correct.

It is interesting to note—[Interruption] The member is interjecting on me, and I am trying to debate the matter seriously. It is interesting to note that the range of nations that have supported this matter is extraordinarily wide. Countries at the United Nations that one would expect to support terrorism have in fact supported Resolution 1373, and that is because I think most nations actually realise that terrorism is a very evil thing and that we need to take international action against it. From that point of view, it would appear to me that this House really has no choice but to support the United Nations resolution.

The next question we come to is whether we should, because somebody might want to give money to the Tamil Tigers for very laudable reasons, decide not to support a clause that states that it is now an offence to give money to a terrorist organisation. I am staggered that New Zealand First has come up with opposition to that clause. Indeed, it is interesting to know what goes on in New Zealand First caucus meetings, because New Zealand First, on a previous bill—I will not go into it—just made a general rave against foreigners, and now, apparently, it is making a general rave against foreigners except the Tamil Tigers. I find that really quite extraordinary. This clause is saying that one cannot give money to an organisation that supports terrorism just because it also does charitable actions. That is a well-known characteristic of many terrorist organisations—that on the one hand they do terrorism, and on the other hand they carry out good works because, of course, they are trying to win public support. But that is not a reason for this House to agree to people giving money to them.

Let me then turn to the matter of substance that I think the honourable member was raising, and that is the fear that ordinary New Zealanders who give money to street collections somehow will be caught up by this clause. Well, I was not on the select committee so I am looking at it slightly more objectively. I say “Get real!”. To get a prosecution under new section 8(2A), in clause 4—and Mr Jones must know this; he was a reasonably competent lawyer—will be very, very difficult. Indeed, one could put up an argument that it is a show clause, and I am afraid I actually do believe that. It is a clause to show the rest of the world that we are doing our bit, but who seriously thinks anyone will get home on it in court?

Let me read new section 8(2A), because that is what I have been forced to do: “A person commits an offence who, directly or indirectly, wilfully”—that means the person actually meant to do it—“and without lawful justification”—we got that out—“or reasonable excuse”—we have two more reasons to give the court—“provides or collects funds intending that they benefit, or knowing that they will benefit, an entity that the person knows is an entity that carries out, or participates in the carrying out of, 1 or more terrorist acts.” Realistically, to get home on that in court, one needs someone to put an advertisement in the newspaper saying: “Support the Tamil Tigers. They are a worthy cause. Send money to Box …”. One would have to do something almost as blatant as that.

Then we have to ask ourselves whether it is worth passing such a provision. It probably is, because if we did not have such a law, there would be some people who would organise collections of that sort. But all we are going to do is stop those people who openly collect for terrorist organisations. Under this clause, we certainly will not be able to stop those people who are secretly collecting.

I say to the New Zealand First Party and to the Greens that there may be some political advantage in their opposing this clause, but I am not sure whether I can see it. I cannot see the point in criticising the Government for not going any further, because although the world has a problem, when I look realistically at New Zealand I have some difficulty in believing we have. I will give just one simple example. We all, at least twice a week, go through the security checks at our domestic airports. They cost New Zealand multimillions of dollars. Tens of thousands of Swiss army knives have been lost, and other bits and pieces of jewellery. We have not found a single terrorist, and we cannot really be serious about it, because a suicide bomber could put his or her luggage—which is not checked—on the aeroplane and fly off to whatever oblivion he or she wants to go to. Why are we doing it? We are doing it to play our part in the international fight against terrorism.

So having expressed my scepticism that this measure will do much good, and having looked at it as a responsible parliamentarian, it appears to me we really do not have any choice except to pass it. It is certainly not helpful to suggest that innocent New Zealanders will be caught up in this measure. Let us get real. I think we have no choice but to pass this measure. The ACT party accordingly will vote for it.

This is a shameful bill that shows the inconsistency in the Government’s talk about human rights. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee is in the middle of a review of the Terrorism Suppression Act. Submitters to that review are repeating what is being said all around the world—that the legislation brought in soon after the September 11 atrocity was often rushed and often did not take full account of human rights. Traditional civil liberty safeguards have been challenged by anti-terrorism legislation on a number of fronts. The determination of criminality, when it is put in the terrorist basket, has been taken out of the hands of the judiciary in many cases, and put into the hands of politicians and their officials.

In our Terrorism Suppression Act, it is the Prime Minister who does the designating. There are some appeal processes, but several places around the world, such as Guantanamo Bay, show that there is no guaranteed due process. The same lack of due process applies in countries like Pakistan, the President of which, Purvez Musharraf, is arriving in New Zealand tonight.

In our Terrorism Suppression Act there is a right of appeal to the court, but this is highly constrained. Information against those labelled as terrorists is commonly classified, and under the original Act can be withheld from them when they take their appeals to the High Court. The standards whereby the State has to prove criminality are lowered when crime, usually potential crime, is defined as terrorism. New Zealanders can be imprisoned under our Terrorism Suppression Act for giving some form of support to an organisation initially only suspected of being terrorist. This suspicion can be based not on the fact that they have committed a terrorist act, but that they might do so.

Another critical problem is the loose definition of what is or is not a terrorist organisation. Since September 11 the United Nations has come to no agreement on any definition, basically because one country’s terrorist is another country’s freedom fighter. The definitions of terrorism are often so loose that even normal protest groups get caught. We have seen this in Denmark this month, with Greenpeace being put on trial under anti-terrorist legislation for entering an agricultural ministry building in a protest against GE. Similar prosecutions could take place under our anti-terrorist legislation if a more right-wing Government, wanting to clamp down on protest groups, came to power.

Under the existing definition of terrorism, protest groups involved in civil disobedience or serious disruption of an infrastructure facility—to use the terms in the present Act—do not need to intend to harm anyone. They need only do something deemed by the authorities as likely to endanger human life, to be caught under this Act. It is disgraceful that rather than waiting for the present review of the Terrorism Suppression Act to be completed, the Government is making the original bill even more draconian. To put it bluntly, the amendment bill is in this House today not for any good reason, but to please the Bush administration and its allies in their so-called “war against terrorism”.

This bill makes the Terrorism Suppression Act worse, in three respects. Firstly, it extends criminality from financial support for carrying out a terrorist act, to financing an allegedly terrorist group as such for any purpose, even if that purpose has nothing to do with terrorism. In the explanatory note of the bill, even “the payment of general routine expenses such as rent” is criminalised. It was this provision that received the most attention from submitters to the select committee. Several pointed out that thousands of New Zealanders could have been convicted under this provision if it had been in place at the time they were digging deep to give tsunami relief to Sri Lanka. As was pointed out by submitters, much of the aid that New Zealanders gave went to the Tamil-controlled area in the north and east of Sri Lanka. Some of those who donated would have known that their aid would be going via organisations controlled by the Tamil Tigers, who are designated as terrorists by the Governments of America, Britain, and Australia and are treated as terrorists by some agencies in New Zealand, particularly the Security Intelligence Service, which I have direct evidence interrogates members of the Sri Lankan Tamil community in regard to their connections in Sri Lanka. Let me be clear. Under the Terrorism Suppression Act, an organisation does not have to be officially designated as terrorist for donors to it to be criminalised by this new provision.

The Government told the select committee that the submitters were right—the law did apply to ordinary New Zealand aid donors if the Tamil Tigers were considered terrorist. The only reassurance to us was that if we were intending the money to be used only for charitable purposes, that would be a good court defence, and such New Zealanders would be unlikely to be convicted. But why should we have a law that requires New Zealanders to mount such a defence in such cases? The outcome would be a lottery, according to the political mood at the time. A New Zealand donor to one of the purely charitable Hamas agencies in Palestine, of which there are several, might not be so lucky in court in a political climate following a particularly despicable Hamas suicide bombing.

New Zealanders’ chances of winning any such court battles will become worse if another part of the amendment bill passes. In the original Act there is a qualifying section 8(2), after the subsection that makes it illegal to give money for carrying out a terrorist act. The qualifying section 8(2) states: “To avoid doubt, nothing in subsection (1) makes it an offence to provide or collect funds intending that they be used, or knowing that they are to be used, for the purpose of advocating democratic government or the protection of human rights.”

Common sense would dictate that the newly inserted provision for the lesser offence of funding a terrorist organisation, rather than funding a terrorist act, would carry the same qualification, particularly in the climate of 2005 when people are more conscious of not having terrorist legislation restrict civil liberties than they were when the original Act was passed.

But no, the Government has made it clear that it wants to knock this “avoidance of doubt” provision, where it is a defence to aid democratic government or the protection of human rights, right out of the original Act. Its first step towards this is not to have it apply to the new provision for the financing of a terrorist organisation. This is a betrayal of the original political contract, which led to the Terrorism Suppression Act passing through this House in 2002, as expressed in speeches from people like the Labour chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, Graham Kelly. They repeatedly reassured those submitters who were critical of the bill, and there were about 130 of them, with the “avoidance of doubt” clause, and another comfort clause about engaging in protest being by itself not sufficient basis for implying that a person was carrying out a terrorist act. The Green Party will be moving an amendment in the Committee stage to at least have the “avoidance of doubt” qualifying provision apply to donations to an allegedly terrorist organisation.

The third way in which this amendment bill makes the original Act worse is by extending New Zealand’s terrorist designations, which expire this year, for 2 further years until late 2007, 2 years after the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee presents its review on the Terrorism Suppression Act. That is particularly bad, given that we know that the designations are not always accurate. The present ones all come from the United Nations, and there are many admissions now that its processes are not up to standard and that it does not build into its processes the right to due process for all those designated as terrorists now or in the past. Extending designations when we know that in all likelihood some of them are wrong is unconscionable.

The last amendment to the Act we passed—which is why this bill is the No 2 bill—was, in fact, to enable the Government to remove organisations where errors had been made. So that legislation accepted the fact that errors could be made. It is argued that it would be hard, or time consuming, for the High Court to check designations as the Act at present prescribes. But if we are to apply justice to those who are so designated, and to anyone who supports them, there must be a checking process, and officials responsible to the court can do that checking just as easily as officials responsible to politicians. As the Human Rights Commission pointed out, the Government has not gone to the trouble of applying to the court with any of these expiring designations to give it time to initiate that process.

Basically, this amendment shows disrespect for the judiciary, and puts politicians above them in determining the future of designations. The concept of putting politicians above the judiciary is a basic problem of anti-terrorist legislation around the world.

At the outset, as the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, I express to the officials who advised us and served us so faithfully our appreciation for their professionalism, their advice, and their assistance as we dealt with these issues.

I come back to section 8(2A), inserted by clause 4, because that is really the most important part of the bill. I want to pick up a couple of the arguments that have been raised so far. It is certainly true that during the select committee’s examination of the bill, we received a large number of submissions from people concerned about the possible criminalising of their generous donation to some charitable concern for humanitarian reasons. I want to take that analogy and then test it alongside what the provision actually states. Let us imagine someone, in the wake of the tsunami disaster, deciding to support Tamil relief, or other relief causes, collecting on the streets of Wellington. The fear expressed to us was that, unwittingly, those people might be exposing themselves to prosecution if it was discovered subsequently that the organisations to which they were donating were in fact terrorist organisations. The provision actually states that that person would commit an offence if he or she “directly or indirectly, wilfully and without lawful justification or reasonable excuse, provides or collects … knowing that they will benefit”. So, short of someone actually carrying a placard or a banner indicating where the funding will go, a person making that donation can hardly be said to be doing it wilfully, without lawful justification or reasonable excuse, or providing funding, knowing that terrorist organisations will benefit.

The test is a very high one. The select committee was certainly concerned to ensure that no innocent parties were adversely affected by this provision. We looked very closely at the wording and the intent. I pick up the point that Mr Prebble raised. There are so many qualifications in here, in terms of hurdles to be crossed, that one could say that the section has been dressed up rather grandly. Far more likely, what the clause does is put in place so many hurdles a prospective offender has to cross to make it almost impossible that the innocent would be trapped by it. The test is a remarkably high one.

After a lot of consideration, the select committee came to the conclusion that that was a fair and reasonable amendment to make. It would not capture the innocent, and it would not give rise to the concern expressed in some of the submissions. In response to a point made earlier by Mr Jones, I say that that was why the committee inserted in its report the comment: “We seek the Government’s confirmation that this is indeed its intent.” It was certainly the conclusion of the select committee that the intent of the provision was as described to us and as reported in our report. We are seeking an explicit statement from the Government, made in the course of this debate, that that is exactly what it had in mind, because that is what we believe the Government had in mind all along.

This is not a question of second-guessing or saying that the law is not clear enough. It is saying that the only way in which we, as a group of reasonable people, were able to interpret the provision was in that way. We expect that was the Government’s intention, as well. We therefore think that that should now be stated explicitly, in the light of this consideration and in the light of the concern that was expressed to us. This is not a way of trying to second-guess or rewrite the law. It is simply a way of reinforcing what we thought and took to be the obvious. It does come down to being a very high threshold for any prospective offender to cross.

Reference has already been made to the fact that we should not be making these amendments at this time, in view of the fact that we are undertaking, as provided for under section 70 of the principal Act, a wider review of that legislation. That is a very erroneous conclusion to draw. Firstly, we have the practical problems of the designations that have been referred to. When members in this House rightly express concern about the speed of court processes and the fact that justice is often being delayed, I invite them to consider the consequence of not passing the particular provision relating to designations. Our courts would become, in effect, nothing more than outlets to process terrorism designations. Vicious murderers, killers, thugs, and other violent offenders—property thieves, drug dealers, and the lot—would have to take their place in an ever-lengthening queue, because the court system would be clogged. I would then invite those members who have expressed concern about justice being delayed to come back to this House and say that that is an acceptable position, because clearly it is not.

There was no alternative but to act. It may well have been, in retrospect, an unwise provision to have included in the first place, in terms of the duration of the time. But the reality is that we have to act now, and we are, through this bill. It does not cut across the provisions of the wider review. I say to the House that in fact that review is well advanced. As of today, I think we have heard from all of those who wished to make submissions to us on that review. An interesting commentary, both on this bill and on the wider review, which is at variance with some of the arguments we hear about the level of wider concern, is the number of submissions we have received. This bill received 13 submissions. An earlier speaker referred to the principal Act receiving 130 submissions. The substantive review has received a similar small number of submissions. That is indicative of a general acceptance in the population that there are now matters that require us to act in the way we are acting, that some of the assumptions we might have had in our naivety 3 or 4 years ago no longer apply because of an international situation we could not have imagined those few short years ago, and that, therefore, some compromises—unfortunately, perhaps—have to be made to some of our accepted norms of freedom and the way in which we move around.

I do not get a sense—and it did not come through at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee hearing, either—that there is great unease. I was struck by the similarity of origin of many of the submissions. Many people who have a certain predictability about them were the ones who chose to appear before us on this matter. I do not diminish the points they made, but I simply make the observation that there was a sameness about the submitters and about what they had to say.

We are dealing here with a bill that is essentially procedural. The issue of the designations has to be resolved. The question of the refinement of section 8 of the principal Act by the insertion of this new clause will not compromise good citizens’ rights, at all. The innocent, genuine, well-intentioned person who supports international humanitarian relief organisations will not be adversely affected by these provisions, simply because of the way in which they are designed. The test is a deliberately high one. Short of the public advertisement of terrorist intent or public knowledge that an organisation is a well-known front for terrorist activities, the individual donor or supporter has nothing to fear from these provisions. The sooner we can proceed to pass them, and then later in the year deal with the outcome of the substantive review and, if necessary, make changes to the principal Act in the light of that review, the better for all concerned.

I address this bill also as a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. Obviously, I endorse the main points made by the chair of that committee, and also by the deputy chair. I realise that there were some genuine concerns, certainly from some of the submitters, in terms of this bill. But I make the point that, in our view, it is very clear, on consideration of this bill along with others, that this bill will in no way compromise the rights of decent, genuine citizens, in terms of their various activities on behalf of and contributions to various relief agencies that have been mentioned. I certainly want to assure members of this House about that. Someone has talked about the groups that have been collecting for, for example, the recent tsunami relief appeal, and has said that perhaps some of that money may have unwittingly ended up in inappropriate hands. However, the people who have more to fear—and much to fear, as should be the case—are those who deliberately mislead genuine members of the general public, and then use their offices to channel money to terrorist organisations. In my view, and as has been said by previous speakers, there is a very high threshold in terms of determining those terrorist organisations.

I, along with other members of this Parliament, look forward to the substantive review. Any sovereign Parliament must always be vigilant that any legislation in this particular area does not lead to unintended consequences. In terms of our scrutiny of the actions of the court, and even of the actions of the executive of the day, that is a very important function of Parliament. I heard a previous speaker allude to Guantanamo Bay and to some of the abuses that have apparently been going on there. Of course we should be very concerned about that. Of course we should ensure that such actions and processes are open to the harsh glare of scrutiny. However, as the Hon Peter Dunne very aptly pointed out, the world as we knew it has dramatically changed. The nature of international conflict has dramatically changed, and the way in which we respond to that also needs to change. We have to strike the appropriate balance, and sometimes it is possibly difficult, between individual rights and liberties—the right of people to get together within a democracy—versus the rights of people who would, in my view, blatantly mislead and corrupt the innocent, and channel funding and support to terrorist organisations.

I look forward to the substantive review. I think it is very, very important that we go through that whole process with great care and consideration. Notwithstanding some of the reservations expressed by some submitters at the select committee, which we all listened to very carefully, I commend this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I guess the first thing one has to recollect is that just 2 weeks ago New Zealand SAS troops were deployed from Whenuapai to Afghanistan. Somewhat unusually, firstly, they were transported there courtesy of US aircraft—two C17s—and, secondly, the Prime Minister made the very clear statement that they would be engaged in long-range reconnaissance and direct action. As was noted in the New Zealand Herald, that is, in fact, combat. Today’s network politics also dealt with that issue. It noted that the troops have been deployed at this stage, and in those numbers, because they are part of the intensified campaign to capture Osama bin Laden or, perhaps, to deal to him in some other way.

I guess that is the real point. We—the nations of like mind—are still having to struggle to deal with the reality of terrorism and with the very people who organised the attacks in September 2001. In essence, that is why we are here today debating this bill. There is a reality out there, and it requires very focused and demanding action by our soldiers. We should acknowledge that.

When I hear the Green Party members and, surprisingly, New Zealand First members, in some kind of unusual alliance, saying that it is not necessary to pass legislation that deals with that, I wonder whether they have taken any notice at all—

💬 Dail Jones: That’s not what I said. The member is lying again.

Madam Deputy Speaker—

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member please withdraw that remark.

💬 Dail Jones: I withdraw that remark.

This legislation is crucial. I note that —unlike, I might add, New Zealand First—the Green Party has voted against every single security measure put forward in this Parliament. It has been oblivious to the challenge facing the world in terms of the problems of terrorism.

I want to deal specifically with the concerns raised by both New Zealand First and the Green Party. Both parties raised a similar concern around section 8(2) of the Act. They cannot deny that reality. For some reason New Zealand First has argued that a person who innocently makes a contribution to aid the victims of the tsunami in Sri Lanka would be caught by clause 4, which inserts subsection (2A) into section 8 of the Act.

That is wrong. The reasons it is wrong are this. Firstly, the activity itself must be made wilfully. Secondly, it has to be without lawful justification or reasonable excuse. I would have thought that aiding victims of the tsunami constitutes a lawful justification or a reasonable excuse. So I believe that the basic argument put forward, particularly by New Zealand First, is fundamentally flawed. It is just extraordinary that New Zealand First has chosen to ally itself with the Green Party on this issue. One would have thought it would be careful not to do that, given its record.

I appreciate that we will have the opportunity later to debate the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by New Zealand First, but I note that New Zealand First—and specifically Mr Dail Jones—seeks the complete deletion of that provision. It does not seek to amend it in any way. It does not seek to clarify it in order to deal with a concern; it seeks just to remove it completely. If Mr Dail Jones has a concern, he ought at the very least to have put forward an amendment that addressed his concern directly, rather than seeking a simple deletion. Seeking a simple deletion has the consequence that a person who donates money to an entity that he or she knows will carry out terrorist acts will not be subject to the law. That surely cannot be the intent of—

💬 Dail Jones: It’s an offence—page 1.

No, I am talking about donating to the entity. That surely cannot be the intent of New Zealand First. It probably is the intent of the Green Party, but it surely cannot be the intent of New Zealand First. I believe that New Zealand First has not put sufficient thought into achieving its intention. I can appreciate its motivation, but I do not believe that it has cast its position on this issue correctly.

The second point I want to discuss was more specifically dealt with, I think, by Mr Locke. There is a fundamental flaw in his thinking around the role of the courts and of the executive in designating terrorist groups. As my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith indicated, he warned this Parliament some 2 years ago of the problems this provision would raise unless it was renewed. As has been noted, particularly by the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, Mr Dunne, that provision, in hindsight, has proven to be a mistake.

In reality the Government has no choice but to take the path it has taken. The reason is this. I ask members to imagine what would happen if we took the Green approach. The Green approach would be to have the courts deal with each and every designation. Literally hundreds of entities are designated by the UN as terrorist organisations. Terrorism is like an octopus or a spider; it has numerous tentacles, sub-branches, and the like, each of which has to be designated. It is simply not the role of the courts to examine that kind of material. The courts have not been established for that purpose. Let us get that right. Dealing with national security is always a matter for the executive, and that is how it should be. The law has to reflect the reality.

I understand that the select committee is in the process of conducting a review of the Terrorism Suppression Act. Frankly, it will have to modify the legislation substantially to reduce the role of the court, because the court cannot assume what is in effect an executive power. Only the executive has the full range of information necessary. Much of this is obviously confidential information gathered through the SIS and the like—information provided by friends and allies—and cannot be disclosed in court. One need only look at all the problems surrounding the Ahmed Zaoui case to see the truth of that, yet that is where the Green Party would take New Zealand. It would essentially turn our Government on its head, and that would ruin the effectiveness of our democracy. It would make it extremely difficult for this country’s Government—of whatever stripe—to look after the security, safety, and protection of New Zealanders.

I will look with interest at the work the select committee undertakes in its review. It is important. There were undoubtedly aspects of the original legislation that needed to be improved—that has been acknowledged in the past—and a review of those aspects is necessary. It is noteworthy that the United States is undertaking some modifications to the Patriot Act to deal with issues that time enables people to deal with.

I rise with pleasure to speak on the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2). The National Party will be working with the Labour Party to see that this legislation is passed and passed quickly, for reasons I will outline shortly. This bill brings back memories—for me, anyway—of the morning of September 11, 2001, when we all woke and watched on our TV screens images of that disaster unfolding in New York. I am reminded of the words uttered by the then Prime Minister, Helen Clark, a couple of months before, when she described New Zealand as being in a benign strategic environment. Those words have proven to be particularly foolish, as the events of September 11 showed us in very graphic fashion. September 11 showed that the threat of terrorism is now with us forever, and therefore it has become incumbent on countries like New Zealand to pass legislation, and pass it quickly, to cope with those sorts of issues.

I want to comment first of all on Part 2. The reason we are here now debating this legislation under urgency is that the principal Act apparently, and for a reason unknown to me, listed the various terrorist organisations and then left that list to expire 3 years after the passing of the principal Act. It expires, apparently, in October this year, so there is clearly some urgency to make sure that that list is continued and extended beyond October this year. I take the opportunity to thank the Government for getting this legislation out of the way before the general election, so that the incoming National Government will have one less piece of legislation to deal with immediately after the election—which I now pick to take place about the middle of September. We will be busy tidying up a lot of the other messes created by the Labour Government, and we do not want to have to deal with the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) at that stage. So in that regard we completely support the legislation.

I have been fascinated in this debate, having sat here for the last couple of hours, to find that on this occasion the New Zealand First Party is siding with the Greens in criticising the legislation. But if I understand Dail Jones correctly he is saying that, having criticised the legislation and having tabled in the House a minority report on it, New Zealand First will vote for the legislation.

💬 Dail Jones: That’s correct.

I am pleased I have got that right, because the logic did mystify me, to say the least. New Zealand First is railing against migrants, mainly because of their colour, and suggesting that most of them are terrorists, but when we have legislation aimed at making sure we protect New Zealand from terrorists, Winston Peters and his bunch of merry men come into the House and criticise that legislation. New Zealand First has presented a minority report criticising legislation that deals with terrorism and terrorist groups. Then, at the end of the day, it decides to vote for that legislation. As I said, that attitude by New Zealand First on this particular occasion—not on every occasion—is certainly mystifying, to say the least.

I turn to the comments of the Green member Keith Locke. In going back through the records, to when the principal Act was passed, I note that the Greens also voted against the legislation on that occasion. Once again we have terrorism suppression legislation—the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2)—and again the Green member Keith Locke tells the House that he will vote against legislation that is designed to protect New Zealand against terrorism. Again I listened with great interest to his explanation. I am one of those members who is quite prepared to give Keith Locke the time in the House to quietly explain his point of view. To summarise his argument—and I will attempt to do this fairly—he said that he cannot support the bill because it does not deliver due process to people who may be accused of terrorism. I ask Mr Keith Locke to think about the people in the twin towers and what due process was ever given to them. I say to Mr Locke that 3,000 absolutely innocent people died in that event. They never had a chance to be given any due process by those wicked, wicked terrorists. In supporting this legislation, I say to Mr Locke that it is that event I recall.

💬 Hon Steve Maharey: You trivialise it by the way you talk about it.

Steve Maharey says I trivialise it, but I say to him that I do not. It was the most dramatic event that I have ever witnessed in my life. Mr Maharey might find that funny, but I do not.

💬 Hon Steve Maharey: You’re pathetic.

I did not enjoy seeing those people leap to their deaths just because that was the most likely decision that they could take. Yet Mr Maharey has the audacity to say today that I trivialised that event.

💬 Hon Steve Maharey: You trivialise it.

That is a shocking thing for Mr Maharey to say. He has made some rather silly comments in his time in the House, but that would probably be the most insulting one. It probably has something to do with his explanation of the third way.

💬 Hon Steve Maharey: There he goes again—trivialising everything.

I trivialise that member, for sure. I do not hesitate to do so. But I say to Mr Maharey that I do not trivialise that event. That is one reason why I have no hesitation in supporting legislation like this. I accept that the Government has to move—

💬 Hon Steve Maharey: Well, sit down and vote it through.

Now Mr Maharey says that I should sit down, and that I do not have the right to come into this House and make my 10-minute speech. I say to Mr Maharey that if Labour puts the House into urgency, we on this side of the House will take every opportunity to debate the legislation, and we do not apologise for it. If members of the Government want to sit there right throughout the Committee stage and refuse to take calls, and if they then want to take the odd 1-minute call in a Labour slot, then they have every right to do that. But Mr Maharey should not criticise National members of Parliament who come here intent on doing their job and delivering their contributions in a debate as important as this one.

This is critical legislation and, as I explained earlier, it needs to be passed with some urgency because the principal Act put in an expiry date of 3 years. I have no idea why that happened. I was not involved in the select committee. It would be very interesting if a Labour member took a call about that.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: It was a Labour mistake.

It probably was a Labour mistake. But I say to Mr Maharey that I am very keen to support the legislation. I just take the opportunity to point out that I find it odd that there are two political parties in the House tonight that do not take the same attitude as the majority of us.

The speech that was just given to the House by David Carter really was a pathetic contribution, and here is the reason for that. He oscillated from being totally sympathetic towards the victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, to going straight back into raw political attacks on the Prime Minister, on Steve Maharey, on New Zealand First, and on the Greens. Then he returned once again to his almost tear-jerking soft voice, and his Oprah Winfrey - style attempts at connecting with the victims of terrorism all around the world.

David Carter should have given one speech or the other. He should have either got up and talked about how terrible the different political parties in this House were, and gone ruthlessly political, or given a speech in which he would supposedly give his genuine views on the bill. But he tried to do both, and he showed himself to be a silly, silly member in that regard. That was a silly contribution from a man who was beaten three times by Ruth Dyson, because he always mixes the politics in. David Carter should have focused on the bill. I am attacking him only because I cannot believe how silly that speech was. It came from somebody who has been in Parliament for 11 years—and he could well be gone shortly. David Carter engaged in pathetic theatrics and melodrama, and the next thing we would have expected to see from him was a tear-jerking performance, because that was how immature and juvenile he was about it. That was the silliness of that speech.

The Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) extends the requirements of the law until 2007, and gives the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee the chance to consider it. I hope, when the committee does that, it takes the matter seriously and puts in place a proper process for Parliament to debate, rather than listening to pathetic, political, partisan attacks that are mixed up with School Journal plays. That did not do the member any service, at all. He is a disgrace.

I have been stirred into action by the keen words of Labour’s junior whip.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you able to explain how the Government managed to get two calls in a row? If the Government chose not to speak earlier, there is no obligation on the part of the Chair or the Speaker to even things up at all. I was on my feet well before Mr Maharey.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, the calls have been given correctly, Mr Brownlee. Calls are taken out of order many times. We just had two consecutive ones from the National Party, too.

💬 Hon David Carter: Only because they got the call.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you like to stand and apologise please, Mr Carter?

💬 Hon David Carter: Yes, I apologise.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I tell Mr Brownlee that the calls have been given correctly. That often happens.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I seek the leave of the House to table Standing Order 162.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table Standing Order 162. Is there any objection? There is objection.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I seek the leave of the House to table Standing Order 163.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table Standing Order 163. Is there any objection? There is objection.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I seek the leave of the House to table Standing Order 164.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table Standing Order 164. Is there any objection? There is objection.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have just heard one of the more tear-jerking speeches in the House from Mr Carter about how serious this bill is. He invoked the Kurds and 9/11, and here we have Mr Brownlee—right after Mr Carter’s trivialising speech finished—trivialising this debate yet again.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I do notice the deafness that you appear to have to a number of comments that came from the Government benches during a previous exchange. So, to continue, I seek the leave of the House to table Standing Order 165.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will be seated. I am going to rule on that point of order. There were interjections from both sides of the House, Mr Brownlee, as there had been for a quite a while—for quite a while before you came in, too. The point is—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Are you referring to my absence now?

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Brownlee, I am on my feet, ruling on a point of order. You will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was ruling on the point of order. There had been interjections, but there was certainly no need for the point of order.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I seek the leave of the House to table Standing Order 166.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave has been sought to table Standing Order 166. Is there any objection? There is objection.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise it because a member cannot, by innuendo, make allegations against members. I am intrigued. Maybe the member is just calling out Standing Orders arbitrarily, but I decided to look up the one he called out, and I saw Standing Order 165 is actually about pecuniary interest. The implication I take from that is that you, Madam Speaker, in making the calls, had some pecuniary interest in calling a Government member. Well, that is bribery. The member cannot make that implication. If he wants to suggest tabling some Standing Orders, he should do it with more care. If he is just being careless that is one thing, but if he was seeking to table that particular Standing Order for some purpose, then he is asking us to consider that there was a pecuniary interest.

The member then asked to table Standing Order 166, which relates to the Speaker deciding whether a pecuniary interest is held. I would actually require you, Madam Speaker, to ask the honourable member whether he was making an implication that another member—and in particular, the Speaker—has a pecuniary interest. If the member is doing so, then he should say what it is, because under the Standing Orders he is required to. If he is not making that implication, he should withdraw and apologise for having made such an implication against the Speakership. That seems to me to be going nuclear on an issue, and I really think he ought to come back a little bit.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member. I will ask Mr Brownlee whether he was making such an implication.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: No, Madam Deputy Speaker. By way of explanation, I say that I just think there is such a reckless disregard for the Standing Orders, and for the precedents of the operation of the House, that I felt it necessary to table all the Standing Orders, in order that we may get some better decorum around the place.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Brownlee, it is quite out of order for you to make that allegation against the Speaker, and I think you know that very well. I will give you a final warning about that. You will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise. I seek the leave of the House to table Standing Order 173.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table Standing Order 173. Is there any objection? There is objection.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I seek the leave of the House to table Standing Order 169.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table Standing Order 169. Is there any objection? There is objection.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I seek the leave of the House to table Standing Order 179.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has asked for leave to table Standing Order 179. Is there any objection? There is objection.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether I could get some sense of what is going on here. My understanding is that a call was due to be taken by a Labour member, and a Labour member sought it. Mr Brownlee seems to have taken some strange offence at the fact that the standard rules for the allocation of speakers in the debate have been followed. Now, if we are to have this performance, then that is perfectly all right, and it explains why the Opposition did not want to take leave to have question time. But perhaps it may be easier and it may help matters if we simply seek leave for Mr Brownlee to take a call. I am sure we would all be fascinated to hear what he has to say.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: That wasn’t the issue.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Well, what is the issue? [Interruption] Well, come on.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will call the member who was speaking, the Hon Steve Maharey—

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Madam Deputy Speaker, I asked for some guidance; I have not had a response. The House has a problem, and if we have this kind of irrational behaviour in the House, usually there is a reason for it, and usually we can sort it out. If Mr Brownlee would explain what he has taken offence at, then we can respond.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: All I can say is that I have given several rulings to Mr Brownlee. I have no idea what his problem is.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Perhaps, Madam Deputy Speaker, you could invite Mr Brownlee to tell us, because this behaviour is not seemly in Parliament, even under urgency. I simply want to know what the problem is. I am perfectly happy to try to sort it out.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That seems to be a reasonable request. If Mr Brownlee wants to respond, he obviously can.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: The difficulty is, of course, that having made one explanation already, I have been required to withdraw and apologise for that explanation. That leaves us in a difficult position. It is all very well for the Leader of the House to talk about seemly behaviour, but there were numerous comments—two, in particular, that came from the Government side of the House, and one, in particular, that came from the Minister of Education—that I have taken grave offence to. I have attempted through the Speaker to sort the matter out, but she has not been able to see the point I was making. So if the Government wants to behave in that unseemly manner, then the Government can lose time over it.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I have consulted my colleagues and listened to the member. My understanding is that under Business Committee rulings there is an agreed order of speakers in a second reading debate. Now, the member seems to have taken offence because he was not called, and then he responded to that. He does not seem able to explain to us what the problem is beyond that fact. If that is the origin of the problem, I am perfectly happy to seek leave for the member to take the final call, or an extra call, in the debate.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: In order to help the House, it would be useful for the Deputy Prime Minister to know that in the exchange that resulted from the question over who should get the call—I fully accept the Speaker’s ruling on that and understand the convention, and although I find it a little strange that Labour members were not taking calls earlier, but decided to take them later, that is by the by—a comment was made by the Minister of Education, which the Speaker apparently did not hear. I find that amazing, because almost a whisper from the Opposition side of the House is only too readily heard. Indeed, three withdrawals and apologies have been required from me.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I still have no idea of the issue, because Mr Brownlee did not raise a point of order at the time. If there was a concern about another member and it had been raised, I would obviously have dealt with it.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The first thing is that I just wanted to check the calls, because I thought maybe my maths might be wrong. I realise the member has moved on from this issue, but the rest of the House thought that what he was objecting to was a limited time debate, with a number of speakers. In fact, when the calls are added up, we see that the Speaker had added them up correctly. There was only one slot left, and it was a Government slot. Those are the numbers; I have just checked that my maths is correct. So the suggestion made by Dr Cullen is actually not an answer, because in fact only the Labour Party is now entitled to speak. Everyone else has spoken. The numbers are fair. But I think Mr Brownlee’s objection relates to a different matter. An interjection was made that he has taken very great exception to. I do point out that it has taken a long time to find that out, because there has been no point of order to say what that interjection was. I did hear Mr Brownlee say that he thought there was some deafness. Well, perhaps I share that, because I did not hear the interjection. It appears to me that a nice way of proceeding would actually be for Mr Maharey to rise, withdraw, and apologise for whatever remark he made. The House could then hear what Mr Maharey thinks about terrorism.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Obviously, that is a sensible suggestion. I was concentrating on the issue before the House, and I still am not aware that there was a point of order, as Mr Prebble says, on that matter.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Remarks were made by both Mr Maharey and Mr Mallard, to which exception is being taken, so it may be appropriate if they were called upon to withdraw and apologise.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: If any member made an unparliamentary remark—I certainly did not hear it—I ask that member to withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I am advised that I made an unparliamentary remark, and if I did, I withdraw and apologise.

I am advised that I made an unparliamentary remark, and if I did so, I make an unqualified withdrawal and apology. The wind has been drawn from my sails slightly, but the outrage remains. That is why I have decided to follow on from the speech of the junior whip, who himself felt, towards the end of this debate, that it was very important to rise and comment on the fact that we have had two speeches in recent times from National Party members. One was from Mr Wayne Mapp, known on the Government side of the House as the Captain Mainwaring of the National Party, and the other was from David Carter, who has no nickname because no one can remember him from one speech to another. Both speeches agreed with the Government’s position on the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2). Both speeches took a full 20 minutes—I correct myself; they were 10-minute speeches, and they just feel like 20-minute speeches—but both speeches also ruthlessly exploited the underlying issues.

That was what so outraged my friend Darren Hughes from the Otaki seat, who sat through those speeches with enormous discipline. He is a young man. He has not been in the House a long time. Darren Hughes is not used to the kind of cynicism that has been on display here this evening, as the National Party members spoke. He has not seen that kind of display of exploitation of the fundamental issues before, because he is young. But as a result of sitting here today, even he could finally take it no longer. Darren Hughes rose to his feet and pointed out the sheer cynicism of the speeches. On the one hand, the speeches agreed with the Labour-led Government and said how urgent this issue is, how we must pass this legislation now, and how we must deal with these issues now. On the other hand, in quavering voices, those members tried to rehearse the kinds of terrorist acts that have led to such outrage around the world. That is what led to my young friend having to rise to his feet this evening. People who are listening at home would, I think, have got the message from Darren Hughes that the National Party actually agrees with this legislation. But we are here in the dead of night at 5 past 11, listening to that kind of rehearsed speech from National members, as they say that they fully agree with the legislation, that they want to pass it, that they see it as urgent, and that they believe we should be voting on it. I will sit down now, knowing that the National Party will now want to move to a vote.