Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | Video | Questions Of the Day | Search

 


Goff Speech: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill

Phil Goff: 2nd reading, Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill

Mr Speaker, I move that the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee have recommended that it be passed with no amendments.

The Bill is necessary to ensure that terrorist entities designated as such under the Act do not expire. This 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 support organisations related to Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 was passed in the wake of the horrific events of 11 September 2001. At the time, the nature and 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 provisions in it would need to be kept under review and amended where necessary in 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 that review, and I look forward to their 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 fully comply 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 fully compliant with UN Security Council Resolution 1373, as well as Financial Action Task Force Special Recommendation II. Compliance with these internationally agreed measures is critical to ensuring that New Zealand does not 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, or be used maliciously to allege an offence of funding a terrorist entity, when the donor in fact believed or intended they were funding legitimate human rights, humanitarian or democratic rights groups.

Having given serious consideration to these concerns, the committee was satisfied, as I am, that neither the intent nor wording of the offence will 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 they know 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, requires 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. And 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 review 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 so 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 three years on, all of the entities are still UN Security Council designations – none have been removed from their 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 related to Al Qaeda and the Taliban as terrorist entities to expire, and New Zealand to become non-compliant with the Security Council resolution, is not an option.

Instead, the Bill extends the expiration date for the current terrorist designations for a period of two 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 their review.

I commend this Bill to the House.

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

 

Also, Loan Interest: Productivity Commission On Tertiary Education

Key recommendations include better quality control; making it easier for students to transfer between courses; abolishing University Entrance; enabling tertiary institutions to own and control their assets; making it easier for new providers to enter the system; and facilitating more and faster innovation by tertiary education providers... More>>

ALSO:

Higher Payments: Wellington Regional Council Becomes A Living Wage Employer

Councillor Sue Kedgley said she was delighted that the Wellington Regional Council unanimously adopted her motion to become a Living Wage employer, making it the first regional council in New Zealand to do so. More>>

ALSO:

Scoop Images:
Dame Patsy Reddy Sworn In As Governor-General

This morning Dame Patsy Reddy was sworn in as the New Zealand Realm’s 21st Governor-General. The ceremony began with a pōwhiri to welcome Dame Patsy and her husband Sir David Gascoigne to Parliament. More>>

ALSO:

Ruataniwha: DOC, Hawke's Bay Council Developer Take Supreme Court Appeal

The Department of Conservation and Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company (HBRIC) are appealing to the Supreme Court over a conservation land swap which the Court of Appeal halted. More>>

ALSO:

With NZ's Marama Davidson: Women’s Flotilla Leaves Sicily – Heading For Gaza

Women representing 13 countries spanning five continents began their journey yesterday on Zaytouna-Oliva to the shores of Gaza, which has been under blockade since 2007. On board are a Nobel Peace Laureate, three parliamentarians, a decorated US diplomat, journalists, an Olympic athlete, and a physician. A list of the women with their background can be found here. More>>

Gordon Campbell: On The Key Style Of Crisis Management

At Monday’s post Cabinet press conference Key was in his finest wide- eyed “Problem? What problem?” mode. No, there wasn’t really a problem that top MPI officials had been at odds with each other over the meaning of the fisheries policy and how that policy should be pursued... More>>

ALSO:

Mt Roskill: Greens Will Not Stand In Likely Post-Goff By-Election

“The Green Party’s priority is changing the Government in 2017, and as part of that we’ve decided that we won’t stand a candidate in the probable Mt Roskill by-election... This decision shows the Memorandum of Understanding between Labour and the Green Party is working." More>>

ALSO:

Get More From Scoop

 

LATEST HEADLINES

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Parliament
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news