Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill

The debate on this part includes schedule 5.

This is a relatively small part of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, comprising amendments to other Acts. I think it is interesting to discuss this along with schedule 1, because if people read the Green Party’s minority report they will see there is a part of this bill that the Green Party does support, which is the measure that enables us to adhere to two international conventions. Those are the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. I do congratulate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. Dianne Yates spoke earlier, and I was going to congratulate the committee, as part of that discussion, on making sure that our adherence to those conventions did not wrongly penalise people who may be involved in anti-nuclear protests.

As members may know, there have been protests in the past against nuclear waste ships passing through the Tasman, between France and Japan—both ways, I think—and a flotilla of peace boats went out and protested against one of those boats passing through the Pacific. The protesters did not actually stop its passage, but they flew the flag and got a bit of international publicity. They were rightly very concerned about the safety of the nuclear waste materials on those long sea journeys between France and Japan. They were concerned that maybe something would happen to the boat and it would sink into the sea, potentially creating a danger to our fisheries and our environment, not far off the coast of New Zealand. So that was a very good protest. The Government itself was protesting in its own way about that shipment of nuclear materials.

The bill as it was originally conceived had a good motivation: it sought to stop people from interfering with nuclear material in a way that would be harmful to the populace. But the original provision could have been interpreted as meaning that the act of stopping a boat that was passing through the Pacific—stopping the boat by means of a peace flotilla, as people stopped boats in Auckland harbour during the protests against the visits of United States nuclear warships—might be deemed under the wording to be in contravention of this legislation and to carry a very heavy penalty. So the wording was adjusted in the select committee to avoid that possibility, and that is a good thing.

Another amendment was referred to previously, although I do not know whether it was spelt out by anyone. It was a movement in a good direction: to refer any renewal of a terrorist designation—or any terrorist designation, I think—to the Intelligence and Security Committee, which is a statutory committee of this Parliament. It is made up of the Prime Minister, the leader of the National Party, who is called the Leader of the Opposition in the bill, and in the case of the Prime Minister there are two other people, and in the case of the Leader of the Opposition there is one other person. It is not a proper select committee. In an answer to a parliamentary written question, I found that it has met for only 2 hours and 38 minutes in the couple of years since the election, but at least it provides some little check on terrorist designations. There is some accountability, even though I do not think the committee is able technically to cancel the Prime Minister’s designation, but it is a step in the right direction.

I am saying that because the select committee did discuss things and take on board some of the concerns of the many submitters who were against many of the provisions of this bill. I think that as a leading anti-nuclear nation, under schedule 1 and the international convention it refers to we have to be part of the international campaign leading not only to nuclear disarmament but to stopping anyone in non-State organisations using nuclear bombs or using nuclear material in a way that is really disastrous to populations, short or long term. The release of nuclear radiation into certain environments, be they physical or sea environments, can affect many generations of people into the future, and their environments.

In Part 2 there are some useful provisions, at least in terms of schedule 1, although the other amendments in clause 46 to the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Act 2005 do continue some of the problems that exist in Part 1. The Greens will not be voting for Part 2, because of that problem. But we do want to endorse that part of Part 2 and the schedules, namely schedule 1, that adhere us to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. Thank you.

I just point out that Part 2, with the schedules attached, is a very technical part of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill—it is just a very small part of it. The changes that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee made were to clause 13 and clause 5 in Part 1, where we made changes relating to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. The actual changes to the wording of the bill were made in Part 1, which we have already discussed. I thank the select committee members and those who made submissions on this matter. We have cleared up very clearly that the legislation would not affect protest against ships that are transporting nuclear waste through the Tasman Sea, and so on. That matter has been clarified, as has the definition of a nuclear facility. Those definitions are actually in Part 1.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Tēnā tātou katoa. I just want to take a brief call, acknowledging that Part 2 is a small part at the end of the bill. Unfortunately I have been tied up in other places, but I want to make a couple of points, in particular around the amendment to other Acts and, of course, the consequences in terms of the principal Act.

I ask members to track this scenario through with me. Let us say, for example, the nation was to be woken up to the notion that terrorism was in Aotearoa, and that in order to deal with it the forces of the State were to move to particular areas throughout the country. Along with that scenario, let us say that a force of 50 or 60 police or other personnel were to move in on a community where they suspected that terrorism was possibly there, and that along that line the possibility of charges under this legislation might be put in front of those people. Let us suppose that in going about that action, as one would expect in terms of dealing with terrorism, the forces of the State were to block off particular communities, maybe. After all that action of, firstly, Aotearoa being woken to the notion of terrorism, secondly, the State using its forces to deal with that, quite rightly so, and thirdly, under the banner of terrorism that community maybe being marked as a community of terrorists, let us say that 50 to 70 police were to go about their work in order to subdue the notion of terrorism within that community.

Let us suppose that at the end of the scenario one person was to be taken out of that community after that whole action —and I ask members to please follow me now—and that that one person, after all that activity and the label of “terrorism” having been put on that person as well as the community, was to be charged with another offence, let us say, just for example, under the firearms legislation, then we, as the Māori Party ask this: what happens if we have not necessarily addressed the issue at heart—namely, terrorism? What happens if we have not quite nailed it down? That is the concern in terms of this particular debate. I have already declared from the start—and my colleagues have also declared—that the Māori Party is clear about the notion of dealing with terrorism. If people are caught for a crime, they need to be processed through the right channels of the law. But what happens if one gets it wrong? What happens if one uses a label such as “terrorism” and one gets it wrong because one has changed direction? What happens to the people who may have been affected by that action?

Let us say, for example—as I stressed during question time in this House today—as a possible scenario one goes into a small community, let us say Remuera, does the same thing and maybe, as part of an action to suppress the notion of terrorism, tells people to get out of their cars and have their photos taken. If every person who went left or right, north or south, was instructed to get out of the car to have his or her photo taken, what would New Zealand society think about that? Would our society think that was about addressing the notion of terrorism? In fact, I suppose one would think that if one was going to deal with terrorism, one would go to the source. One would know where it was, and one would go directly to the source. Yet in a possible scenario like this, other people are affected.

Sure, what we are talking about here is an amendment to the principal Act. But the Māori Party is alerting the Committee to the fact that yes, other Acts are part of this scenario, yet this amendment has come out of the primary Act that addresses terrorism. That is why I am trying to draw the whole thing together. We need to be careful in case, in fact, we do not actually nail the source of terrorism. All of us are concerned about nailing the source absolutely. We have to go there. We have to weed those people out, should there be a case. I would have thought that our intelligence would tell us exactly where to go.

But the downside of that is, what flows out of that? For example, in the community I talked about earlier, what would happen if there had already been a historical experience of the State moving in on that community? What would happen if that community had already had an experience, which had been talked about in history, whakapapa, waiata, and kōrero on marae, of the arrival of the State in that community? What would happen is that basically the development of terrorism would move on from one generation to the next. So what we would do, in fact, is to fill people with anger, frustration, and sadness in having to deal with the consequences of this sort of legislation. As I say, I want to make that really clear, because we can almost get into a them-and-us scenario, which was played out in the House today.

But we take these issues really seriously. Why? Because, in a sense, this particular bill and the amendments that are in it have arrived at Aotearoa. We know that because of the current actions—not that we need to talk about them too much, because it has been plastered over all the media that terrorism is in Aotearoa. So the Māori Party tells the Committee to think about those things. After a short space in time we will end this debate and it may all be forgotten. But in a sense, while we talk about terrorism, let us not forget the consequences if we do not quite get it right. Kia ora tātou.

I move, That the question be now put.