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 third time. This bill reflects New Zealand’s continuing commitment to respond effectively to those threats posed by terrorists. The Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 was passed largely in response to the events of September 11—events that confirmed in the most tragic way that terrorism represents a serious threat to international peace and security. Just days after that Act was passed an attack took place in Bali, and there was a major terrorist attack in Madrid last year. The threat posed by terrorism has not diminished. It continues to evolve and adapt, and New Zealand, along with the rest of the international community, must also evolve and adapt our strategies to respond, to counter that threat. This amendment bill is a reflection of that ongoing process.

The bill is necessary to update the original 2002 Act in two important respects: firstly, to ensure that the designation of terrorist entities as such under the original Act does not expire, as that would place New Zealand in violation of the United Nations Security Council’s resolutions; and, secondly, to bring our law into more complete compliance with Security Council and Financial Action Task Force requirements to criminalise those who would provide financial support to terrorist organisations. Although financing a terrorist act is already illegal, not to pass this bill would mean that we would have no legal sanction against those who would support organisations related to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. This new offence will not hamper the desire of New Zealanders to contribute funds to genuine human rights or humanitarian groups. The offence targets only those who knowingly collect and provide funds to benefit terrorists.

The necessity for such terrorist financing offences is part of the global strategy to deny terrorists access to financial support, and to ensure they do not secure access to banking services in order to move funds around the globe in support of their criminal activities. To ensure there are no weak links in the international system, our efforts in this regard are led by counter-terrorist financing standards set by the OECD-based Financial Action Task Force. In addition to the creation of the offence contained in this bill, other Government initiatives already announced include tightening the requirements relating to international and domestic wire transfer of funds, and the cross-border transfer of cash by couriers. Both of these mechanisms have potential to be used by terrorists to move money around the globe. Although there is no evidence that New Zealand is a haven for such activity, it is important that effective deterrent and preventive measures are taken.

Further anti-terrorist and anti - money-laundering measures are also under consideration. New Zealand’s largely deregulated financial system has resulted in potential loopholes in the system that require closing in order to meet the strict international requirements. Although greater regulation does impose administrative costs, not taking action to meet international standards would not only risk exposure to money-laundering and terrorism but also damage New Zealand’s financial and international reputation. These are a matter of balance. Also in that respect, none of the amendments in this bill adversely affects the balance achieved in the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 between the civil liberties of New Zealanders and the need to deter terrorism.

Despite this, there are other provisions of the current Act that would benefit from re-evaluation and possible amendment in the light of experience since its passage. The designation procedures are one clear area for further consideration. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee is currently engaged in an extensive review of the Act, and must report back to the House no later than 1 December 2005. The review of that Act was a requirement inserted by the committee when deliberating on the Act in 2002, after receiving extensive submissions on the measures contained in it.

The nature of terrorism and the methods used by terrorists are ever-changing, and a review is therefore both timely and welcome. I look forward to considering the committee’s report in due course. This bill is important to ensure that the Terrorism Suppression Act continues to remain effective in responding to the threat posed by terrorists. I commend this bill to the House.

I believe that in debating this bill the Committee of the whole House actually had a very good debate, but I will come back to that in a moment. It is important that people understand exactly what this bill, which we are reading for a third time, will do. The bill will amend the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, which implemented United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373—the resolution requiring all members of the United Nations to take measures to combat global terrorism, and to take measures within their own jurisdictions to combat terrorism.

I would like to thank the team of officials who worked with the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on this legislation. It was a small but very good team. I think there were some quite complex issues, and some serious considerations about the balance between security and individual human rights that had to weighed up by the committee. The officials gave us very good quality advice. I do not often say that, because I have heard a lot of official advice over the years, but I thought the team members advising the committee were very good.

I mentioned a moment ago that I thought the debate in the Committee of the whole House was very good, and I will explain why I believe that. I think it is important with legislation such as this, which involves New Zealand’s security, that there is overwhelming support for it in this Parliament. The security of our country is one of the most important things this Parliament addresses when we are handling legislation, and one would like to think that the kind of legislation we pass enjoys the support of most parties when we are dealing with the issue of security.

It was interesting that when the debate started on Part 1, New Zealand First was opposed to it and was in fact proposing to move an amendment to delete clause 4. During the debate—which I thought was a very good debate—New Zealand First changed its view and withdrew that amendment, and ended up supporting clause 4. I do not criticise New Zealand First in any way for changing its view. I think that the Committee of the whole House is actually working well when that sort of thing happens. There was good debate put forward, and good arguments as to why clause 4 was needed, and I think New Zealand First listened to those arguments. Dail Jones, the member from New Zealand First who was handling the matter on that party’s behalf, listened to the arguments, modified the view of his party, and ended up supporting Part 1. That was very good.

I think what really persuaded New Zealand First was the very strong argument that there was a gap in our law through the principal Act. Although section 8(1) of the principal Act makes it illegal for a person in this country knowingly to finance a terrorist act, that section does not make it illegal for a person to give money to an organisation that he or she knows is involved in terrorism, even though the money given may not be directly given to fund a specific terrorist act. Without new section 8(2A), inserted by clause 4, it would still be legal to give money to a terrorist organisation as long as the organisation was not directly funding a terrorist act. I think New Zealand First members were persuaded by that argument, despite their concerns about the full reach of new section 8(2A), and I think that that very good debate led to the outcome of New Zealand First joining the consensus of Parliament, where all other parties except one supported that important amendment to ensure that our security legislation was as watertight as possible.

The one party that remained outside that consensus was the Green Party. I want to address my comments over the next few moments to Mr Locke, who led the Green Party arguments. I do not want to make my comments personal but I want to address the logic of what he put to this House. Mr Locke even took the trouble of seeking the leave of the House to make a personal explanation about his and his party’s opposition to terrorism. I accept what he put to Parliament—as we must—that he, Keith Locke, personally opposes terrorism; he does not support terrorism. I accept that, and in making the personal explanation to the House he argued of course that everyone abhorred al-Qaeda, and everything al-Qaeda did and stood for, and that of course it should be illegal to support al-Qaeda. The member is nodding his head.

But I say to Mr Locke that the problem is that our current legislation does not make it illegal to give money to al-Qaeda. Currently, without that amendment, people would have to know they were giving money to a specific terrorist act of al-Qaeda. That is why the amendment is required. It seems to have escaped the Green Party that the reason for making that amendment in Part 1—by which clause 4 inserts new section 8(2A)—is to make it illegal to finance an organisation involved in terrorist acts.

Clearly, if a person finances al-Qaeda once that new section 8(2A) goes through, that will be a criminal activity here in New Zealand, but without that amendment it is not clear that it would be a criminal activity. Existing section 8(1) requires that, for it to be a criminal act to finance something, a person has to give “funds intending that they be used, or knowing that they are to be used … 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 section links the financing very tightly to the carrying out of one or more terrorist acts, and that is the problem with the existing law.

I accept the arguments of people like the Hon Richard Prebble and my colleagues in National, who have said that the behaviour of Mr Locke and the Green Party in this Parliament is anything but the behaviour of people who genuinely care about New Zealand’s wider environment, including our security environment. In fact, their behaviour is bizarre, and many have branded it red because it is so extreme-left.

Be that as it may, I call on Keith Locke to reconsider, because it would be great if this Parliament could actually reach a consensus on this important anti-terrorism legislation that is important for our security and international obligations. I call on Mr Locke to think about the issue again, because under existing law it is not clear that giving money to al-Qaeda is criminal. It should be, because, as Mr Locke himself has pointed out, al-Qaeda is an objectionable organisation.

In my last moments, let me cover just one thing in respect of the Act as it will be amended after we complete this third reading—that is, there are some real inconsistencies in it. Both existing section 8(1), which relates to the financing of terrorist acts, and section 10(1), which is about the prohibition on making property and services available to terrorist or associated entities, have, for the avoidance of doubt, what I call, loosely, out clauses. But new section 8(2A), concerning the financing of terrorist organisations, will not have that same out clause.

Clearly, in our law it is not good—to put it mildly—to have a part of the Act where there is an out clause for financing terrorist acts and for making property and services available to terrorist organisations, but no out clause for just funding a terrorist organisation. All offences are equally unacceptable and should be equally criminal, and I hope that the select committee, as it completes its review of the principal Act, the Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002, will actually remove those avoidance of doubt clauses, because I suspect that it would be extraordinarily difficult to achieve a successful prosecution while such sections remained in the principal Act.

National totally supports this amendment bill. We believe there has been a good quality debate, and I think it would be great if the House could reach full consensus on the legislation. If Mr Locke could finally accept that the funding of al-Qaeda should be criminal in this country, that would be great, too.

Kia ora, talofa lava, and warm Pacific greetings. I stand proudly not only as a member of this Labour-led Government but also as deputy chairperson of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to support the third reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2).

While I am on my feet I would like to express my appreciation to the Hon Phil Goff, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and also, more important, to his chief legal adviser and to officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Ministry of Justice, and to the 13 submitters who took the time to participate with their submissions. I also want to thank the Hon Peter Dunne, the chairperson of our Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and all my parliamentary colleagues, including Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith and the Green member Keith Locke. Our select committee worked hard to address the complexity of these issues. I also thank others who have participated in the final stages of this debate and who support this very important legislation.

I also feel very positive that the statutory review of the Terrorism Suppression Act conducted by our select committee will provide a suitable forum for all stakeholders to engage in addressing some of the complexities and issues like those that Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith has raised. That report is due back at the end of the year.

This bill needs to be seen in context, not in isolation. It is an element of a range of policies and programmes that this Labour Government has strengthened and supported by including increased funding in this year’s Budget for overseas development aid, fairer and freer trade, and defence and security—and we now have this legislation. All these initiatives work to address root causes of terrorism and to stop terrorism.

The human rights theme was also evident throughout the deliberations of the select committee. I want to quote the link between human rights and the bill, because it is an important one. The world’s human rights institutions’ joint statement declared in Seoul in 2004 stated: “Terrorism has a devastating impact on the full range of human rights, most directly the right to life and personal security.” Our own Chief Human Rights Commissioner affirms that the role of the State is to protect its citizens and all of those within its borders from such violence. This is why we need the legal framework in place to further support terrorism suppression, and why the passing of this terrorism amendment bill is another way to stamp out terrorism so as to protect our citizens and the citizens of the world.

In summary, at the time the original bill was first introduced there was uncertainty as to the nature and extent of the terrorism phenomenon. An assumption that some designations might be short-lived has since proved to be false, and New Zealand now has over 420 designated terrorist organisations, all on the United Nations security list, and is considering adding more groups to that list. The bill also proposes extending two sections of the Act that prohibit the financing of terrorism acts and of designated terrorist entities, so that they also cover the intentional financing of non-designated terrorist organisations. Given the fluidity of terrorist movements and the unpredictable emergence of new terrorist groups, this change is the most practical way of ensuring that New Zealand will always remain compliant with international obligations prohibiting the funding of terrorist organisations.

New Zealand, although small, has a critical role to play as a leader in the Pacific region and as a participant in the Asian region, and must always be vigilant, act consistent with its principles, and remain pragmatic and compliant with international obligations prohibiting the funding of terrorist organisations and of all of those who fund and support their actions. The Terrorism Suppression Act has strengthened New Zealand’s ability to combat terrorism. Terrorism has become the greatest threat to the world’s peace, prosperity, and security. Our collaborative and concerted local, national, regional, and international effort is needed on all fronts, including addressing the root causes of terrorism. United we stand; divided we fall. The effective targeting of terrorist financing is a measure that can have potentially significant impact on the ability of terrorists to operate. In plain language, we can identify or imagine what life must be like for them without money or an economic base. In passing this bill, New Zealand continues to demonstrate its ongoing commitment to stop terrorism in all its forms in our global world.

I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First to again add our support for the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2), which amends some sections of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002. I also rise because my colleague Dail Jones is unable to be here today. Therefore, I begin by going back to the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and to the matters that were raised in the Chamber last night concerning the change indicated in my colleague’s proposed amendment, because those matters are still valid and important.

In submissions made on the bill, one of the major issues for those submitters and the committee must have been that in the catch-all legislation that this bill is about to embody, the funding of legitimate humanitarian or human rights activities should not be impaired. Last night Mr Jones took some time to very ably indicate his, and our caucus’s, view on those matters. We were reassured by the Minister, who said in his second reading speech, which he later reaffirmed for the Committee, that the intent and the wording was not to catch such funding, and that humanitarian or democratic rights groups acting solely in humanitarian ways were not intended to be subject to that clause. So last night New Zealand First withdrew its suggested amendment.

When the leader of United Future and chairperson of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, the Hon Peter Dunne, spoke on these matters in regard to the actual matter that Dail Jones was concerned about, namely clause 4, which inserts proposed section 8(2A), I was somewhat confused by Mr Dunne carefully going through the suggested new section, and saying that, test by test, the threshold was so high. I also had in mind that earlier the Hon Richard Prebble had talked about this show clause. When one really looks at the actual law in practice, I think that Peter Dunne had it right. This threshold may be so high and may seem to be so inclusive but, in fact, the series of tests that must be met will result in no activity at all in actual practice in regard to this clause.

Contrary to what Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith has said, section 8(2A) in clause 4, and section 8(1) of the principal Act are in reality not so far apart. Notwithstanding the language the officials have carefully put together by trying to be all things, and setting so many tests, in legal practice this may not work as the committee intended. I am not signalling that my colleague was wrong in regard to this clause. I am saying to members that this particular section may yet prove to need further amendment if it is to achieve the intention of the committee. That may yet prove to be the case.

On behalf of New Zealand First, I say that we broadly support the intentions of this bill, because we all know that since September 11 of 2001 there has been a change, not just to the Americans, but also to our world. We received an understanding that into our sphere of influence—and we all realise how close the issues of Indonesia have been in recent times—came a sophisticated, selectively targeted type of terrorism that some countries, unfortunately, had known for many years, which knew no favourites, and had no agendas other than exactly as we saw in regard to the events of that day. The territorial boundaries were no longer there in regard to that world and our world.

New Zealand First has been very, very concerned over several years about the border, and entry of people to this country, and has seen, particularly in recent months, that the Government has been unable to say with any great assurance that its immigration policy is able to identify each and every immigrant in the defined way that it ought; New Zealand First and the Rt Hon Winston Peters have exposed the inability of the Government to say that person A is that person, has that history, and has that record. In the sort of environment that we have today, this bill is very much needed.

Therefore we support the bill. We support the need to look further at those designations, and contrary to what the member from the Greens has said, the matters that are before us are matters of law. What may happen to another country is of no concern to me or to New Zealand First. We take the United Nations designations in regard to who should be a group. But the real matter of this bill is what pertains to New Zealand’s legal system and to our law. All the examples that I have heard from the Green Party are of no significance against the fact of what we think is desirable practice.

In saying that, though, as a law and order party, we at all times would wish that this be strictly in accordance with sound legal practice. Political judgments must, in the end, be judgments that can be justified in law. This bill does just that. We support its passing and we look forward to the fact that it is but one step, we hope, to greater security at the border and for New Zealanders. We also look forward to the final report, later in the year, that should give a completeness and a comprehensiveness that this short amendment bill does not give.

Finally, on behalf of New Zealand First I say that we are pleased to support this bill further, earnestly hoping that the intended objectives will be achieved, although I must say, personally, and on behalf of Dail Jones, a wee bit of residual doubt remains.

The Green Party would like to say at the outset that of course all the parties in the House are united to fight terrorism in the most effective way, and we should have appropriate laws for that. We are utterly against all forms of terrorism, be it non-State terrorism or State terrorism. Those listening to this debate might think “Oh, the Greens are on their own; they are some sort of minority off to one side.” But if one had been at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and heard the submissions, one would have found that, overwhelmingly, the organisations that submitted—and they were respected organisations: various civil liberties groups such as the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties, the Canterbury Council of Civil Liberties, the Human Rights Foundation, the Peace Foundation, the Association of University Staff, etc.—raised the same criticisms that the Green Party has been raising in this debate.

What we want to do is to fight terrorism most effectively. I did indicate before that if we do not fight terrorism in the most effective way, and protect human rights at the same time, we are in deep trouble. I will just quote Lord Hoffman, because I think it is relevant, and I have quoted him before. He said in the House of Lords: “The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these [which breach human rights]. That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory.”

Another quote is from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, who made the key point: “A commitment to uphold respect for human rights and rule of law will be one of the keys to success in countering terrorism, not an impediment blocking our way.” Unfortunately, members in this House have seen the Greens’ objection to new legislation that undermines human rights as somehow an impediment to fighting terrorists. In fact, it is just the opposite, if members look at that.

Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, has a similar concern. He puts it round the other way, and I will quote from him. “Every time we advance the protection of human rights we deal a blow to the evil designs of terrorists and we remove a sense of injustice, which can cause the oppressed to channel their frustration into illegitimate violence. If we compromise on human rights in seeking to fight terrorism, we hand terrorists a victory that they cannot achieve on their own. If we build on these fundamentals I believe we can develop a new vision of global security—a vision that respects human rights while confronting the threats of our age, including the threat of terrorism.” I think that is very important.

Mr Prebble mentioned the IRA, I think, in his speech. When one looks at how Governments around the world confronted such problems before September 11, one finds that the IRA was part of a combined movement with Sinn Fein, its political wing. But the British Government never brought in a law such as this to throw people in jail if they gave money to Sinn Fein. The reason it did not do that is it knew that the reality was that Sinn Fein, despite the fact it was associated, through its support of the IRA, with despicable terrorism that everyone opposes totally—putting bombs in pubs, and all of that, which people like myself were, historically, the strongest in criticising—also had the support of the bulk of the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland. Its people were being elected to Parliament, etc.

So the best way to end that terrorism—and the British Government had this approach—was, ultimately, to get into a dialogue with Sinn Fein and convince it that progress could be made in some of its legitimate objectives, rather than in its illegitimate objectives through the use of violence, to better the lot of the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland, or to give it a chance to advance its republican agenda, which there was support for, and was a political goal not a military goal, and to allow it to have room in the political structures of the country to do that. That was successful. It has not been totally successful. Sure, there are still remnants of the IRA around, but proceeding in that way basically has brought relative peace to Northern Ireland, rather than trying, as in the past, to criminalise people who gave money to Sinn Fein.

The same thing applies in Sri Lanka today where there has been an effective ceasefire since November 2001. A whole lot of effort is going on, involving nations around the world—and the New Zealand Government has played its role in that, to its credit—to try to rebuild Sri Lanka, to promote human rights, and to get both sides in the earlier vicious civil war, where terrorist acts were committed by both sides, through dialogue, through rebuilding, through aid, through what is called, if one listens to Norwegian peace negotiators, confidence-building measures, to bring peace to that country. That process has been undermined by the designation of the Tamil Tigers still, this year, by the United States, as a terrorist organisation. It just does not help. If those designations are combined with the practice of trying to smash that organisation, it does not help the whole rebuilding process.

Actually, one of the submitters to the select committee, David Small from Arena, made a good point and he related it to development, and I quote him: “It is now widely accepted by governmental agencies like New Zealand Aid that long-term development assistance is most effective when local organisations are intimately involved in every aspect of the work, from its conception to its evaluation, and in situations of conflict such as exist in Aceh and Sri Lanka, groups that are representative of local communities are necessarily involved in the rebuilding work. However, such groups may also fit within the criterion of having participated in the carrying out of a terrorist act. This bill would criminalise any group or individual who provided assistance to such a group. I’m, of course, not suggesting that the tsunami donor records of the development agencies would be seized and prosecutions brought. However, in considering amending the law in the way the bill proposes, one must seriously take into account what is made possible and not just what is likely in the current conditions.”—by which I suppose he means with a Labour Government in power today and the general atmosphere towards tsunami relief, we are not expecting any prosecutions, but when we write laws we are writing them for a more difficult situation. In the future we might have a Government that is pretty antagonistic to the aid community, and is running some rather strange foreign policy agendas.

One of the problems, and this came out in the debate, is that the report from the select committee stated that people cannot give to any organisation if it had in the past committed, or had an aspect of committing, terrorist activities, even if—and I refer to groups like the Tamil Tigers—it is involved at the moment in constructive activity that the international community is supporting. The select committee report states that the provision does not catch those who are involved in the funding of legitimate human rights, humanitarian, or democratic rights groups, and that these groups have to be acting “solely” in this way. The word “solely” was put in specifically to relate to the Tamil Tigers and groups like that, or Sinn Fein; if there is any aspect at all of terrorism in groups’ activities, then New Zealanders can be put in jail for funding them. That is where the amendment crosses the line and does not become useful in advancing peace and reconstruction. That is the problem.

Unfortunately, the Green amendments to this bill were not passed. We tried to get the existing exception—the qualifying provision that exists in the present law in terms of funding groups that are promoting democratic rights and democracy—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The member’s time has expired.

I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak in the third reading debate on the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2). It is just as well to remind the House what the bill is actually about, because it was not clear from Mr Locke’s contribution. The third reading is an amendment to the earlier Terrorism Suppression Act that was passed just after September 11. Fundamentally, this bill does two things. The earlier legislation made it illegal to give money in this country to support terrorism. It was then realised that there was actually a loophole in the earlier bill—that people could claim they were not giving money to support terrorism, that they were just giving it to the entity. So this bill says that that it is illegal in New Zealand—or it will be shortly, when this bill is passed—to give money to a terrorist organisation.

Mr Locke then said that means that people who gave money after the tidal wave would be caught up. Again, if members look at that clause it is written so that people have to give the money wilfully, they have to know that the money will go to an organisation that engages in terrorism, and they have to have no reasonable excuse. I think that Mr Locke is now alone in the House in believing that that could mean that a person who gave money to a street collection could be caught up. Mr Jones, on behalf of the New Zealand First Party, did raise some questions about that at the Committee stage. We listened to the assurance given by the Minister, which is written into the Hansard record, and which the court will take notice of in the event of any prosecution. All the lawyers in the House say that this law is so written that the requirement of intent is so high that in fact the only people who will be caught will be those who openly say: “I’m collecting money for a terrorist organisation in order to strengthen their ability to bomb the hell out of whomever they are against.” That is about as strong as it would have to be for that one to get home.

Then there is a second section where the United Nations has designated a number of organisations as terrorist organisations. That section, which is now in our law, will lapse if this bill is not passed. It was probably contrary to our intentions when we go back to 2002—I have looked back at the Hansard lists, and no one, not even Mr Locke, thought that the United Nations would actually have designated 430, is it?

💬 Hon Member: 410.

It has probably gone up a couple more since we started this debate, but there are now 410 such organisations. The idea that we would take each one to the High Court would be a huge waste of taxpayers’ money, amongst other things. We know from the Zaoui case just how long those sorts of cases might take.

So we have a practical question before us. The whole House, including New Zealand First, now says that we should do this, except Mr Locke from the Green Party. It is interesting. I have gone back and looked at Hansard, and Mr Locke is consistent. He gets up, on bill after bill, and says that the Green Party is opposed to terrorism, and he says that the Greens have opposed it every time it has happened. I have no doubt that he has probably put out press statements after various bombings have occurred. The question is, what actions have the Green Party taken in order to protect New Zealand? That is a legitimate question because the No. 1 responsibility of this House of Representatives is the security of the nation and its citizens. It is not our No. 2 or No. 3 responsibility, it is our No. 1 responsibility—but not according to the Green Party.

According to the Green Party, it is far more important that we give human rights to those 410 terrorist organisations. I ask the member why. Surely the No. 1 responsibility is the security of New Zealanders. Secondly, the proposal he is putting forward, as he has been told by officials and by experienced members of this House—in fact, I think he himself knows—is completely unworkable. If we were to follow the Greens’ prescription it would not be illegal to raise money in this country for terrorist organisations. We know that if it was not illegal there are a number of misguided individuals—fortunately, a very small number—who would do that. New Zealand would become known to be a home for terrorism, and that would be as a result of following the Green Party policy.

Does it matter? Unfortunately, it does. We are an MMP Parliament. Obviously, the polls might change, but it is clearly the objective of Mr Locke’s party to no longer be a critic of the Government but, according to Mr Donald, to be part of the Government. That is why I think the most significant thing that has come out of this debate is a question for New Zealanders as to whether they want the Green Party to be in charge of our security. I make this statement: if the Green Party becomes part of the Government, that is a threat to the security of New Zealand. I do not trust Mr Locke with the information. I do not trust the Green Party. I do not think that the Green members of Parliament should serve on the security committees that look at confidential information that is given to us by our allies. Indeed, I think that if the Green Party starts to have Cabinet Ministers, we will find that will have an effect on our best protection against terrorism. It has been said by successive Prime Ministers, including the present one, that our best protection against terrorism is the fact that we have international agreements that enable people to share intelligence.

I listened to Mr Locke today and he made it clear that he does not trust those organisations. In the speech that he made today his principal arguments against the bill were not what New Zealand would do, but what the United States and Britain have done. They are the two nations that supply us with information, and they are aware of this House. They are aware of Mr Locke’s Hansard. No doubt they have a file on him. I have been aware of him since I first ran into him when I was a university student. Mr Locke has never grown up. He has exactly the same views now as those he had at the height of the cold war. He has not moved one inch. The rest of the world has moved on, but Mr Locke has not. The only thing that is different about him is that he used to run under a red banner and was never voted for, but he then found that if he painted it green but did not change any of his views, he could get elected.

I say that this should be an issue at the next election. I am not standing, but I say to anyone who is thinking of voting for the Green Party that if we look at its actual record on this crucial issue, the Greens never talk about the environment. They raise matters, the logic of which would be that New Zealand would be defenceless against terrorism. Mr Locke has failed in his No. 1 responsibility. His No. 1 responsibility is not to try to get votes from the people who share his paranoid view of the world, it is to vote for what is in the best interests of the security of this nation. This bill is absolutely essential for that, and his failure to vote for it shows that he is not fit to be part of the Government. I do not think that the Green Party deserves even to be in this House.

We have just listened to a very fine speech from the Hon Richard Prebble on a concern that I think is widely felt in this House and, for those who are listening, widely felt outside it. We have a party—the Green Party—that through its representative is opposed to the provisions of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2). It is opposed to the creation of an offence that has for its purpose compliance with international standards for counter-terrorist financing, and to the creation in specific terms of an offence in connection with funding terrorist groups.

Whether it takes the form of bombings, hijackings, shootings, or assassinations, terrorism is neither random, spontaneous, nor blind. It is a deliberate use of violence against civilians for political or religious ends. It seems to me that it is characterised by four key elements. Those elements are that, first, it is premeditated, planned in advance rather than being an impulsive act of rage; second, it is political, not criminal like the violence that groups such as the Mafia use to get money but designed to change the existing political order; third, it is aimed at civilians, not at military targets or combat-ready troops; and, fourth, it is carried out by sub-national groups, not by the army of a country.

The word “terrorism” itself was coined during France’s Reign of Terror in 1793. Originally, the leaders of that systematised attempt to weed out traitors amongst the revolutionary ranks praised terror as the best way to defend liberty but, as the French Revolution soured, the words soon took on grim echoes of State violence and guillotines.

There is nothing new about terrorism, of course. The oldest terrorists were holy warriors who killed civilians. One can think of the 1st century situation in Palestine where Jewish Zealots would publicly slit the throats of Romans and their collaborators. In 7th century India members of the Thug cult would ritually strangle passers-by as sacrifices to the Hindu deity, Kali. In the 11th century in the Middle East the Shiite sect known as the Assassins would eat hashish before murdering civilian foes.

The Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002, the principal Act, which is the subject of amendment and present debate, has had something of a chequered history. This is the second time since 2002 that the legislation has been amended. I echo the comments made by others that when National becomes the Government in September we will need to take a hard look at this legislation and deal with some of the deficiencies that have been identified.

The Act’s original purpose was to implement the obligations for New Zealand law in connection with the bombings convention, the financing convention, and the anti-terrorism resolution of the United Nations. Then in 2003 the nuclear material convention and the plastic explosives convention were added to the provisions of the Act.

There is no doubt that the legislation has shortcomings, and they include the involvement of the court in the extension of the designation of terrorist entities. It is interesting to see that that responsibility is now to be imposed on the Chief High Court Judge. Most of us involved in the law have seen the role of that particular official as being concerned with the expeditious dispatch of the court’s business. In my view, that official should clearly not be cast in the role of determining whether designations should enure. That is the first aspect.

The second aspect I would identify is that I doubt whether the best way of dealing with terrorist groups is by designation in the way the legislation contemplates. Whatever the number is—I think 450 was the suggested number of groups that are currently outlawed—that seems to me to be an unworkable arrangement.

It is also right to say that religiously motivated terrorists like al-Qaeda are less restrained than other terrorists. Earlier arch-terrorists such as Carlos the Jackal and Abu Nidal never contemplated, much less attempted, the complete destruction of high-rise buildings packed with people. But for those religious groups such as al-Qaeda, the Arabian-backed Hezbollah, the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo, and the Palestinian group Hamas, mass killings are considered not only acceptable but holy.

The rise of terrorism since September 11 has of course produced new strategies and new thinking. In the context of New Zealand defence arrangements, where there was for a time a passing interest in what one might call some form of niche response, we have had to move on from there. We have had to move on in substantial measure, because of the challenges that asymmetric warfare poses. The responses that may have been satisfactory several years ago are now not satisfactory. I think it is a matter of regret that the New Zealand Government has not yet sufficiently caught up with that change.

So here it is—the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2), which National supports, is on the brink of being passed. We support that legislation for the reasons I have indicated, but we see a clear need for the legislation to be reviewed, both as to its content and as to the underlying strategy behind it. I join with other members of the House in expressing shock at the comments made by the Green Party in its apparent refusal to accept that terrorism is a real issue that must be confronted head-on.

This bill is necessary to update the principal Act of 2002 in two important respects. Firstly, it ensures that the designations of terrorist entities under that Act do not expire. That would have placed New Zealand in violation of the United Nations Security Council resolution. Secondly, the bill brings our law into more complete compliance with the requirements of the Security Council and the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering to criminalise those who provide financial support to terrorist organisations. I support the passage of the bill.

This bill is very important legislation, and I am astounded that the Green Party member—Mr Locke—can stand in this House and say, in effect, that terrorists have more rights than the citizens of New Zealand.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: That’s what he was saying.

He was. The role of Parliament and the role of the Government is, first and foremost, to protect New Zealand, New Zealanders, our properties, our lives, our families, and all that we stand for. That is what democracy is about. That is true democracy, not this woolly thinking that comes from the Green Party. I hope all New Zealanders take on board the fact that we have a party that is prepared to stand in this House and say that this bill on terrorism, which we are debating today, is not important. I find that absolutely astounding. I am dismayed by it and astonished by it—it is an absolute disgrace. All other parties in this House over the course of the debate have been very clear indeed about the importance of our sovereignty and our ability to be secure in our position in terms of counter-terrorism. But we see that one party in the House is actually going to move away from that provision. It will be interesting, when we come to vote on the third reading, to see whether the Green Party votes against it. It might abstain. We will see. It might sit on the fence.

We are debating the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2), which National is supporting. We have heard some very good arguments today and yesterday on the importance of this legislation to New Zealanders and our economy. I want to highlight the problem that we face as a country so geographically isolated that we could be a threat and we could be used as a base. That is why it is important that our security services and our military are able to cope with any eventuality—those unseen things that creep up on us. It would be naive to think that because of our location we have a defence against that and that we are protected. That is absolutely not the case, because terrorism is around the world. Anyone who has travelled since 9/11 will have seen the border controls now in countries such as the United States. That is a protection that we need. It is a protection that New Zealanders expect to be in place when people arrive here.

Our border control agencies—the Customs Service and Immigration Service—are to be commended for the work they do. Yet we have a party that is saying in the House today—and I hope New Zealanders take note—that this bill is not needed. In doing that, the Green Party is probably promoting the view of human rights, which it always pushes, but what about the rights of New Zealanders? I would have thought that was important. I know my colleagues think our human rights are important, because with rights comes responsibilities. One does not just have rights; one expects that responsibilities go with that. Yet one party in this House decides that that is not important.

When we look at what is happening on the world scene with regard to terrorism, we see that it is brutal, it is violent, there are no qualms about what it can do, there is no respect for the laws of the land, there is no respect for lives, there is no respect for property, and there is no respect for the international reputation of the country in which it happens. We have seen it throughout the world. Whether it takes the form of bombings, shootings, hijackings, or assassinations, we know that terrorism is neither random, spontaneous, nor blind. It is a deliberate use of violence against civilians for political or religious ends. If we look at wars around the world, we see that they are dominated by a political sense, by political intrigue, and by people who believe they know best and therefore force on people, civilians in particular, their views, which then, of course, backlash.

If we look at the definition of terrorism, we see there are four key elements. It is premeditated. It does not “just happen”. It is premeditated. It is planned in advance. It is not an impulsive act of rage that happens at the time. It is premeditated. It is political. It is not a criminal event but a political event—like the violence that groups such as the Mafia use to get money—designed to change the existing political order. Terrorism is based on political ideology, and it is aimed at civilians because they are the most vulnerable. They are the ones who cannot react. They are the ones who are unable to stand up for themselves, protect themselves, or take countermeasures. Terrorism is not aimed at military targets, because there would be an immediate response. It is not aimed at combat troops, either. It is aimed at those who are the most vulnerable—the people who cannot defend themselves; the civilians. The fourth point in the key elements of terrorism is that it is carried out by sub-national groups. It is carried out by small groups of people who are fanatics. That is what they are. They are fanatics for a political cause. They are pushing an ideological point of view that is contrary to the view of the majority. Terrorism is not aimed at the army of a country; it is aimed right at the heart of those who are the most vulnerable, and they, of course, are the civilians and citizens.

So where does the word “terrorism” come from? What are the origins of this word? It was coined during France’s Reign of Terror between 1793 and 1794. Originally, the leaders of this systemised attempt to weed out traitors among the revolutionary ranks praised terror as the best way to defend liberty. As was found out during the French Revolution, the word soon took on the grim echoes of State violence and guillotines. That is the origin of the word “terrorism”. Is it a new phenomenon? No, it is not. As my colleague Dr Worth said, it has been around since the Middle Ages. I will not repeat what my learned colleague Dr Richard Worth said, because he crystallised and articulated a very important facet of what terrorism means, and the phenomenon that is associated with it.

The final point I want to reiterate is that terrorism is not blind. It is a deliberate attempt by groups of fanatics to further a political cause, and it is aimed at hitting those who are the most vulnerable in society, those who cannot protect themselves. They are the civilians of our nations. Any Government’s primary role is to protect its citizens and its country. That is the role of a Government. This Parliament has the opportunity to put into force laws that will allow our Government and our Government agencies to do what is right. There is nothing more important in a democracy than being assured of our security and our peace of mind during difficult times. We may be geographically isolated, but I can assure members that we are vulnerable. Any party that cannot support this bill is not worthy of representation in this Parliament or any Government.

I rise to support the third reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2). The need to extend the legislation, which Parliament passed in 2002, reflects the way the world now has to do business. The reality of terrorism is with us in terms of the foreign policy of many countries; even a small country like our own of 4 million people at the bottom of the Pacific has to be very focused on this issue.

The amendment to the legislation is needed as a result of the events of September 11, which are still very firmly in the minds of members, as mentioned throughout the whole debate. That terrible event caused tragedy for so many people, and the effects continue today. I note that Families of September 11, an advocacy organisation in New York, is working on issues arising from the fall-out of that event and the terrible suffering of those people. The new executive director, Jennifer Mincin, has written very good articles about the issues that confront victims of terrorism. Those things are very firmly in the minds of all parliamentarians.

I am very grateful for the chance to say a few words on this bill.

💬 Hon David Carter: There won’t be many.

There could be quite a lot. We have plenty of time. I am staying in Wellington this evening, so I am not worried. First of all, I profoundly disagree with the comments made by my Green colleague Mr Locke and his approach on these matters. Fundamentally, I think Mr Locke is quite—

💬 Hon David Carter: Your colleague?

I would refer to Mr David Carter as my parliamentary colleague. One’s “colleague” does not necessarily mean ownership in any sense. Indeed, one wants to disown them in some sense.

I think Mr Locke’s problem, as on a number of matters, is simply that the world has passed him by. He has not caught up with the change in reality since the 1960s. We are no longer in support of freedom-fighting guerrillas in Third World countries, against awful oppression. We face quite different kinds of threats, which are well organised, financially sophisticated, and able to route their activities even through countries such as New Zealand, and that is why we have to be part of the intelligence networks and others that deal with them.

Let me say that I am still sufficiently old-fashioned, and liberal also, to defend the right of Mr Locke to express those views and to differ profoundly from what Mr Tisch said. Mr Tisch said essentially that if anybody disagreed with supporting this bill, he or she had no right to be within this Parliament. I just have to say gently to Mr Tisch that one of the ironies of democracy is that we do have to end up defending the right of people to say things, even if they could potentially threaten democracy on occasions if they were to be taken too seriously. I think Mr Locke unwittingly signs up sometimes to views that provide some kind of threat in that respect, but I have no doubt at all of his own commitment to democratic principles within our society. Much more important, I have no doubt at all of our responsibility to uphold his right to express those views within this Parliament, because undoubtedly there are people outside this House who are concerned about some of the measures that we now need to take in order to protect ourselves against movements that are within the international arena.