Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, 3rd reading

The Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill will ensure the Act's provisions reflect New Zealand's international obligations.

---------------------------------

Mr Speaker, I move that the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill now be read a third time.

This Bill is the culmination of an extensive review of the Terrorism Suppression Act commenced by the Foreign Affairs and Trade Select Committee in 2005. I wish to thank the Committee for its hard work.

Mr Speaker, recent events have to some extent diverted attention away from the substance of this Bill. This is unfortunate, because the genesis of this Bill does not lie in these events, but is the product of several years of work by the Select Committee and officials to strengthen and improve the working of the Act.

This Bill will not substantially change the way in which the Terrorism Suppression Act operates. Rather, its primary purpose is to make the Act more workable, and to ensure that its provisions reflect New Zealand's international obligations.

The changes proposed will bring New Zealand law into line with that of other countries with which we share and enjoy the stability and security of fair and respected legal systems.

Mr Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the effect of the Bill's more contentious provisions, and to touch on the main amendments that will be made to the Act.

Firstly, the Bill proposes amendments to the current process for designating United Nations terrorist entities.

Considerable confusion has surrounded the scope of this provision - to the extent that some parties have claimed that the automatic adoption of the UN list of terrorists will affect the rights of New Zealanders to support liberation struggles, democracy and human rights overseas.

I would like to take this opportunity to make it clear that the UN list relates solely to Al-Qaida and the Taliban terrorist entities.

To comply with mandatory Security Council obligations, new provisions were required to ensure that terrorists listed under United Nations Resolution 1267 - which deals with al-Qaeda or Taliban activities - are automatically designated as terrorist entities under New Zealand law, and that those designations remain in force until removed from the UN terrorist list.

This will ensure that New Zealand complies with its obligations under the United Nations Charter. As the law was previously drafted, this was not assured.

The Select Committee, responding to concerns that a New Zealander may be erroneously included on the UN list, has recommended that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, when exercising his or her authority to publish the UN list, include information as to how a designated person or group can seek their removal.

That recommendation will be followed. If a New Zealander was ever included on the UN list, the notice advising of the listing would set out the process for challenging the Security Council's listing decision.

In essence, the person could apply to be delisted directly to the focal point established for that purpose by the Security Council Committee that maintains the UN list.

Alternatively, they could ask the Government to submit a delisting request on their behalf.

Turning now to the process for designating non-UN terrorist entities, I would like to make it clear that for the most part, there will be no change to the current process.

The Prime Minister is currently responsible for making the interim and final designations of non-UN list terrorist entities. The Bill will simply amend the process for renewing non-UN designations after a three-year period.

The Prime Minister, rather than the High Court, will now be responsible for renewing a designation, if satisfied on reasonable grounds that the entity continues to be engaged in terrorist activity.

This approach is consistent with similar jurisdictions, where decisions at the renewal stage are made by the same office holder who made the original designation, and the same test is applied.

As the Committee itself has noted, decisions to renew a designation, like decisions to make an initial designation, involve judgements about national security and are more appropriately made by the Executive.

Mr Speaker, when considering this Bill, the Select Committee was careful to ensure that each amendment struck the appropriate balance between the preservation of civil liberties on the one hand, and the need to protect New Zealand's national security on the other.

When considering the appropriate process for renewing designations, we must note that the Act provides an important safeguard by virtue of the right to bring judicial review of designation decisions, which is preserved in section 33.

The Committee added a further safeguard, by inserting a new provision, which will require the Prime Minister to report to the Intelligence and Security Committee when a designation is renewed.

Mr Speaker, this Bill will further enhance our counter-terrorism legislation by creating a new offence of committing a terrorist act.

This offence is aimed at conduct involving terrorism that is at the very serious end of the spectrum, and as such can be seen as similar to other international crimes such as genocide and crimes against humanity.

The offence carries a high threshold, with the Attorney-General's consent being necessary for a prosecution.

The definition of "terrorist act" also sets a high threshold. To be classified as such, the action must satisfy the intention, purpose and outcome elements of the definition. This definition will be interpreted strictly, and in accordance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

The Bill will also bring increased certainty to the provisions of the Act relating to terrorist financing offences, by repealing the "avoidance of doubt" provisions. Those provisions were designed to clarify the ambit of those offences. They have, however, done the opposite.

The provisions have created uncertainty by confusing the mental elements of the offences. Because of the way the provisions are drafted, they have the potential to undermine one of the key purposes of the legislation, which is to criminalise the intentional financing of terrorist acts.

This would be inconsistent with both Security Council resolutions and our own position that acts of terrorism cannot be justified.

Removal of these provisions will not compromise the right of New Zealanders to engage in, or financially support, peaceful protest activity.

The Act's very definition of a "terrorist act" expressly states that legitimate protest, advocacy or dissent, is not, by itself, sufficient basis for inferring an intent to commit a terrorist act.

This Bill will also incorporate amendments necessary to bring New Zealand up to date with its international obligations by creating new offences involving nuclear and radioactive material.
These are required to enable ratification of the International Convention for the Prevention of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, and to ensure compliance with recent amendments to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material.

In response to submissions, amendments have been made which will improve implementation and compliance with these conventions. The new offence provisions have also been narrowed, to address concerns that the provisions could apply to legitimate protest activity.

Mr Speaker, debate of this legislation has, quite rightfully, raised issues regarding the appropriate balance between maintaining respect for human rights on the one hand, and protecting national security on the other.

In a recent report published by the Commonwealth Human Rights Commission, New Zealand is identified as a country which has successfully enacted anti-terrorism legislation without a corresponding reduction in human rights.

Any legislation which deals with the complex and increasingly important issue of the terrorist threat will necessarily be subject to rigorous scrutiny and debate.

It is imperative that we continue to make our best efforts to ensure the correct balance between the preservation of civil liberties and the protection of New Zealand's national security.

I consider that this Bill achieves that balance, and I commend the Bill to the House.