New Terrorism Bill
Green MP Keith Locke ' s speech.
First reading debate, April 2, 2003.
The Greens will be voting against this
bill, despite some good clauses in it, because it is a fraudulent bill.
It is a fraudulent bill because although
it is called the Counter-Terrorism Bill, much of the bill has nothing to do
with terrorism or counter-terrorism. I am referring to the many amendments to the
Crimes Act, the Misuse of Drugs Act, and the Summary Proceedings Act, which
have nothing to do with terrorism and are sneaked into the bill because the
Government knows that if a counter-terrorism label is put on amendments members
will be more reluctant to oppose them.
Let us go into some of those amendments.
Clauses 8 and 26 amend the Crimes Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act, not because
of anything to do with terrorism. The explanatory note makes it clear that
those provisions are to overturn part of the Court of Appeal's decision R v Aranui
4 years ago. An element of that Court of Appeal decision was that they could
not use interception warrants for fishing expeditions because they are an
intrusion on our privacy. However, the two amendments in the bill before us
will mean that warrants obtained to gather evidence on something like theft
will be able to be used to fish for evidence on things not specified in the
warrant, like drug offences, or vice versa.
Other amendments are to the Summary
Proceedings Act and they also extend police surveillance powers, with no
special reference to terrorism. These
involve giving the police broad powers, generally after a warrant is obtained,
to use tracking devices to follow where people go. Most people will think this
is about tracking devices on cars, but it can be tracking devices secreted on
any "thing". These "things" could be people's clothing or
their bags. Electronic devices are now so small that this is feasible, and the
devices could be easily linked up with the GPS system so that a person under
surveillance could be tracked everywhere they go. This is a very intrusive
provision, which up till now has been generally restricted to drug offences,
and has now been generalized to cover police investigations into virtually any
crime.
We have to be very careful about giving
police these extra powers to invade the privacy of suspects in this way, even
if they have to produce a good case before or after the fact to the judge
handing out the warrant. We have not heard a good argument for granting this
extension of police powers.
There is also an extra search power being
granted under the same Summary Proceedings Act. A constable executing a search
warrant will be able to demand of a person in the place being searched, help in
getting any information off any computer located on the premises. The police do
not - unlike what Phil Goff said - have to have a specific court order for this.
If a person does not cooperate he or she could be up for 3 months in jail. In
practice, they will have to give over any encryption devices or get round any
firewalls for the police. Normally people are not supposed to be forced to
incriminate themselves. Here they are being forced to participate in perhaps
their own incrimination. It is a big intrusion on our privacy to give
constables this generalized power, because a large part of our life is often on
our computers.
One of the Green Party's concerns with
the Terrorism Suppression Act passed last year was that legitimate protesters
might be convicted as terrorists, because the definition of a terrorist act was
so broad. Terrorism, under that bill,
could involve causing serious economic loss or seriously destructing an
infrastructure facility in a way likely to endanger human life.
This new Counter-Terrorism Bill confirms
our fears that protesters are more of a likely target of such legislation than
terrorists. Clause 7, which amends the Crimes Act, has an even more general provision
that could apply to protesters, without any specific relevance at all to terrorism.
To be liable for a term of up to 7 years, one only needs " to intend to
cause significant disruption to commercial interests or government interests
" , and to communicate information about harm to people or property in
this regard. Surely this would cover many, perhaps most, cases of non-violent
civil disobedience, like we saw in the 1981 protests against the Springbok
Rugby Tour. It could also apply to those anti-GB citizens currently talking
about taking action against GE crops, the planting of which in New Zealand
would so endanger our health and economic future. No one is saying that people
involved in civil disobedience should not be subject to the law, but why do we
need this broad and harsh new provision governing what people say.
When we look at all the provisions I have
mentioned - none of which has anything specifically to do with terrorism - they
do represent a serious undermining of our civil liberties. They challenge a
number of provisions in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
The provision on communicating
information on harm to property conflicts with a freedom of expression
provision in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That provision states:
"everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to
seek, receive and impart information and opinions of any kind in any
form."
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
provision against unreasonable search and seizure should also restrain
unreasonable demands constables will be able to make on people, as regards
people having to disclose all the contents of their computers. The New Zealand
Bill of Rights Act provision should also mean that we want to limit the very
broad and loose use of search and surveillance warrants. The clauses in the current
bill, whereby police can get an interception warrant for, say, drugs, and then
use that warrant to fish for evidence on other crimes, is not compatible with
the spirit of the unreasonable search provision in the New Zealand Bill of
Rights Act. It could also be used in some cases to persecute people, to keep
them under surveillance until the police have something on them, allegedly for
some crime.
It also challenges our right to privacy
under the Privacy Act.
All that being said, there is a part of
this bill, Part 2, that has some good features. This is the part that amends
not the Crimes Act, etc. but the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, to adhere to
some good international conventions, such as the Convention on the Physical
Protection of Nuclear Material, and the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives
for the Purpose of Detection. The Green Party does not quarrel with these
conventions.
We are a nuclear-free country, so of
course we should be implementing legislation controlling the importation,
acquisition, possession, or control over radioactive material. We are also
clearly against the use and movement of unmarked plastic explosives. These are
practical measures against criminal behaviour, using plastic explosives and nuclear
materials. It is important that New Zealand is at the forefront of the
international campaign against the smuggling of nuclear materials, and adhering
to all the appropriate treaties.
However, other courses in Part 2 amending
the Terrorism Suppression Act only reinforce the bad provisions of this Act,
which the "" Greens opposed last year. If the wrong people or groups
- that is, genuine political activists - are designated as terrorists, then the
harbouring and related provisions in this bill will only reinforce the
injustice that could flow from the existing Act. These result from the overly broad
definition of terrorism in that Act. There is also the political nature of the
process of designating terrorists and terrorist organizations, and the lack of
full due process in the appeal system where by people can be designated as
terrorists without even in subsequent appeal situations having the right to see
all the information being used against them, if it be deemed to be classified
and secret.
I have focused on the problems with Parts
1 and 3 of the bill that do not relate at all to the Terrorism Suppression Act.
The problem with this bill is that it is using people's revulsion of terrorism
to justify a serious undermining of our civil liberties.
The Government should think again. If it
wants to get us adhering to international treaties on plastic explosives and
nuclear materials, do that in a separate bill devoted to it. The Greens will
support it. If the Government wants to do a completely different thing,
relating to general surveillance and search, do that in a separate bill,
amending the Crimes Act the Summary Offences Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act
and let us have a proper discussion free of any scare talk about terrorism.
We have to wake up to the fact that the
so-called "war against terrorism" is being used as an excuse for a
serious infringement of our human rights. This is particularly true in the
United States under the Bush administration, but it is also happening in other
countries, including New Zealand. The problem should not be made worse, as is
being done in this bill. This bill is a compendium bill that mixes up the good bits
relating to real dangers with bad bits.
The Bill passed the First reading this morning by 110 to 9 - it will proceed to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Select Committee and submissions will be called for shortly.