Terrorism Suppression - a fresh attack on our civil liberties

Tena tatou katoa

Mr Speaker, the report back from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill couldn’t have come at a more pertinent time.

Last Friday I fronted up to the community who have been forced into the national spotlight, a small rural community under siege, accused of being a breeding ground for terrorists.

The village of Ruatoki will now assume a distinctive classification in the national psyche – the place targeted with allegations of terrorism. The community came out in force on Friday - tamariki, whanau, teachers, bus-drivers, caregivers - all forming a hikoi to the Whakatane Police Station.

Some of these people wore placards saying “I’m innocent’; or else ‘I’m a hunter, not a terrorist’; or else ‘Don’t point the gun at me – I’m under five’.

And in one particular case a placard caught my eye: ‘State violence to Tuhoe: yet another generation, 1866, 1916, 2007’.

Mr Speaker, that placard is at the heart of what Maori take to this new Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill.

For the Terrorism Suppression Act is being reviewed:

in a political context when the laws to repeal sedition are being overthrown; and while Tuhoe await the Waitangi Tribunal report on their claim;


in a social context best summed up by a young Tuhoe mother who described her inability to leave the Ruatoki valley and the appearance of the black-garbed officers she talked about as “being terrorised when we were innocent”;


and in an historical context which is carved out in Tuhoe tribal memory by the confiscation line which marks the site at which they were punished for their supposed rebellion against the Crown, by confiscating all of their lands in 1866.


Mr Speaker, our party like others, supports the notion that we take terrorism very seriously and the protection of our country.

But in the case of the actions we have seen this last week or so, I want to make one simple point about the long-standing impact the police raids have made on the Maori psyche.

Mr Speaker, a couple of weeks back, a game was played and lost, and a nation mourned. National radio described the stages of grief immortalized by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross.

The sportspeople were treated to grief therapy. New Zealanders psycho-analysed every last moment of the eighty minutes of pain, critiquing the role of the ref, reviewing the build up activities, assessing the state of national identity as it moved through the process of loss.

The trauma was taken seriously. The national heroes had suddenly tasted defeat and New Zealand reeled in shock.

Mr Speaker, this is a useful example of how the collective spirit of nationhood works, in success and in the crushing overwhelming sense of loss.

You see for tangata whenua, what happened last Monday 15th, was even more traumatic and sinister because this was much more than a game. It was an armed and terrifying invasion of a community; an action which has carried a negative stereotype of Tuhoe to the nation, as the tribe of terrorists, and left trauma, horror, bewilderment and fear in its wake in that community who wonder if their house will be next.

But worse still, the hurt that has been caused through the impact of the anti-terrorist Operation Eight, has brought to the surface historical parallels that must be considered in any debate on the suppression of terrorism, of rebellion, of political activism. For the use of the 2002 Terrorism Suppression Act has forced Tuhoe back into the memory of the 1863 Suppression of Rebellion Act.

As the events unfolded last week, we heard Tuhoe people talk of having been there before – referring to the massive confiscation of some 181, 000 hectares of land from the supposed rebel tribes of Tuhoe, Te Whakatohea and Ngati Awa in 1866 - labelled rebels because of their stands against government atrocities.

One koroua spoke of the hunt for Tame Iti having parallels with the pursuit of Te Kooti Arikirangi Te TÅ«ruki. Te Kooti was hunted by the Government of the day in a relentless scorched earth campaign, in which people were killed, homes destroyed, lands and stock ruined, an iwi starved and deprived by the impact of Government actions.

Another kuia spoke of a day in 1916 when Commissioner John Cullen and some seventy constables, armed with rifles and revolvers, marched into Maungapohatu and arrested Rua Kenana on charges of sedition and resisting arrest; the sedition charges were later thrown out.

And now yet another generation. The perpetuation of injustice, generation after generation, cannot be forgiven nor forgotten. For those who say this is all way back, I say no, remember the foreshore and seabed act of three or four years ago.

I find it deeply worrying that the definition of terrorist act in the principal Act under amendment here - the intimidation of a population, in a situation of armed conflict, that causes serious injury to civilians not involved in the hostilities of the situation - so specifically describes the actions of the police in Ruatoki.

Mr Speaker, the reason we are considering this Bill now, to amend the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, is because we are told that certain provisions of the Act are inconsistent with New Zealand’s obligations under the United Nations Charter and the United Nations Security Council resolutions on terrorism.

The Bill is designed to bump up the compliance with international counter-terrorism obligations, obligations which give effect to a number of mandatory resolutions relating to Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

It is fascinating that the Executive – while unable to sign up to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People just two months ago, now expects us to all be very scared about the consequences of not signing up to these other United Nations charters and resolutions.

Mr Speaker, the Maori Party is particularly concerned about the extension of national designations recommended by this Bill.

We are concerned that the independence of the High Court jurisdiction in the continued designation of terrorist entities is removed, in favour of a determination by the Prime Minister.

We believe the process of review of designations would become less independent and even more vulnerable to political interference. There is also the risk or enabling greater influence from other nations – such as the United States.

We agree with the submission from Global Peace and Justice, that if such a provision proceeds, independent scrutiny of cases will be minimised as in effect the Prime Minister will become judge and jury. At least with the courts there is the ideal of independent scrutiny, which if absent, can be appealed for.

Another key objection from the Maori Party rests with the creation of a new offence of the commission of a terrorist act – an offence which becomes punishable by up to life imprisonment.

The Law Society brought forward their concerns that terrorist activities are not clearly defined in the Bill, the interpretation being more about motivation or intention rather than defining the actions committed in the actual terrorist offence.

And it is here that the recent events give us particular cause for concern, when we considering the likelihood of double jeopardy.

Mr Speaker, by the police detaining suspects under the Summary Proceedings Act and the Firearms Act, while they then search for evidence for another crime to fit the definition of the Terrorism Suppression Act, there has been considerable speculation that the Police are at risk of placing the defendants under double jeopardy – charged with one crime, but being detained for the purposes of another. And that Mr Speaker, is unlawful as I understand it.

What the Terrorism Suppression legislation does is to make it quite clear that the Attorney General’s consent is required before a charge may be laid against a person. Time period is not specified – yet natural justice must surely act against unreasonable delay in challenging a continued remand in custody.

Finally, Mr Speaker, I want to refer to the codes of secrecy which have led to such uncertainties around this last week. Many of the submitters noted their concerns in the bill about issues of procedural fairness and the human rights of designated persons, in relation to the use of classified security information in court.

The key message coming through from this last week has been to query why people have been remanded into legal custody without being given reasons for the deprivation of their liberty (a legal right dating back to the Magna Carta). But it appears that no reasons have yet been given, despite repeated requests by legal counsel. Being held in custody without reason has led to some concluding that New Zealand now has its own equivalent of Guantanamo Bay.

We think it is important to note, that while the general emphasis of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill is focused on the threat of international terrorism, the assumption that tangata whenua have been making this last fortnight, is that it very clearly can also be applied to attack the activist cause across our domestic law as well.

Mr Speaker, what this Bill seeks to do, is to create a climate of fear around anyone who supports liberation struggles, the fight for justice, democracy and human rights, whether in Aotearoa or offshore.

This Parliament and the citizens of this country must be alert to the fact that any concept of democracy and free speech in Aotearoa, given the events of the past week, is very much at risk.

It is a fresh attack on our civil liberties, our human rights, and the continuing story of injustice against injustice in opposing indigenous rights. We in the Maori Party oppose this Bill in our strongest rejection of this Government yet.