3. Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) Link to this
to the Minister of Police
Does the consolidated list of designated terrorist entities maintained by the New Zealand Police contain all of the terrorist entities listed in the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s consolidated list, as asserted by assistant commissioner Jon White yesterday; if not, how many more entities are listed by Australia but not by New Zealand?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) Link to this
No, it does not, and Assistant Police Commissioner White did not assert that all terrorist entities on the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s consolidated list were contained in the New Zealand - designated list.
Hon Murray McCully Link to this
Does she accept as factual the unanimous report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to this Parliament in relation to the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 that states: “The Government has not yet used section 22 to designate any terrorist individual or group that is not included on the UN list … By comparison, Australia has listed approximately 88 terrorist individuals or groups under UNSCR 1373 …”; if so, why did she tell the House yesterday: “there are not 88 terrorists on an Australian list.”?
First of all, I accept the select committee’s report, and I also accept that the same report went on to state that New Zealand does things differently from other countries in relation to designating terrorists under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1267 and 1373. I accept that we do things differently—
John KeyNo, I will not accept that it is wrong. Let me get to the crux of what this whole matter has been about. The member Mr McCully went on Morning Report and referred to “the list of 88”. Mr White said he was not aware of those figures. Mr White did not know what figures Mr McCully was using. Mr White went on to say that he was referring to a list of terrorist entities designated under the Australian criminal code. That is the Attorney-General’s list. There is not on the website a list that states that “these are the 88”, as that member said.
Hon Murray McCully Link to this
Would the Minister have expected Assistant Police Commissioner White, as the Government’s primary adviser in relation to the Terrorism Suppression Act, to have read the select committee report on the Terrorism Suppression Act; can she tell the House why he did not read it and why, therefore, he did not know about the Australian list?
That member is making assumptions about Assistant Police Commissioner White, which I refute. Assistant Police Commissioner White is a very well-informed officer, and he is responsible for putting forward the names of those who should be designated in New Zealand—he coordinates that. He also has a lot of information around people who are acting in a way we would not want them to—that comes from international lists and intelligence. His job is to ensure, along with other agencies, that we keep New Zealand’s borders safe. I am very confident that that is what they are doing.
Hon Murray McCully Link to this
Can the Minister confirm the advice that officials gave to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee that they were “finalising and implementing a process” for making section 22 designations in New Zealand; and can she explain why Australia has been designating terrorist entities under the same UN resolution since at least 2002, while New Zealand officials are still working on a process to do so?
It is because we have a different Act from the Australian legislation. Our Terrorism Suppression Act requires us to use the legislation that is provided. Australia does not have the same legislation as New Zealand has. We put in place a very high test to decide who will be a terrorist under that Act. The Australians use regulations. This Parliament decided that it would not do that, so there is a high test. However, I have to say that the officials in New Zealand have been working very long and hard on these issues, and New Zealanders need to be assured that they are very much on top of them.
Keith LockeDoes the Minister agree, in view of her reference to a high test and because so many innocent people are detained at the Guantanamo Bay detention centre, that we cannot trust either George Bush’s unique terrorist list or the subsidiary list of his deputy sheriff, John Howard in Australia, that we should stick to the UN list, and that we should also follow the lead of the European Parliament on Monday and vote for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention centre?
Each country will do things that suit its needs. This Parliament decided that it would have a particular Act that takes a different approach from legislation in other countries. But at the end of the day the outcome is the same. We are determined to have safe borders for New Zealand. We use international lists, we use intelligence, and we use our contacts with like-minded countries to ensure that we have a lot of information that I am sure Dr Brash knows a lot about, but that we do not make a song and dance about because we certainly do not want to be telling terrorists what work we are doing.
Hon Murray McCully Link to this
Does the Minister wish to revise her statement to the House yesterday: “Assistant Police Commissioner White knows exactly what he is talking about.”, in light of his appearance on Radio New Zealand this morning to admit that the statements he made on the same programme a day earlier were 100 percent wrong?
No, and I will tell the member why. He should go back and read the transcript. The member talked about “the list of 88”. There is no such list of 88; there are 88 names of individuals and organisations amongst a list of over 1,600 names. The member did not made that clear on the radio. The 1,600 people include those on the UN list, plus those individuals and organisations that Australia has named because they should not be financed. Under section 8 of New Zealand’s Terrorism Suppression Act, we ensure that those people who are terrorists cannot be financed. We do not list them in the same way as the Australians do, because we do it differently. The select committee report states that we do it differently. Different countries have different approaches. What that member is trying to do is to confuse a whole lot of issues. Let us remember where this started. The member tried to say that Mr Ali was a designated person. He was not designated; he is not on any designated list, anywhere. The member has tried to make a feast out of it.
Hon Murray McCully Link to this
How can New Zealanders have any confidence that this country is safe from the threat of terrorism, when the assistant commissioner of police who is responsible for counter-terrorism is an incompetent bungler who has no understanding of who is on and who is off the list of dangerous terrorists, when the Prime Minister will not front up to the House to answer questions, and when the Minister of Police is too lazy to put time into getting her head around a matter that is vital to our national security?
There is only one lazy, incompetent, useless member in this House, and that is the member over there who has just asked this question. I will tell members why. He has one purpose in mind, which is to garner a few votes for the party he belongs to. He does not care one jot about the security of New Zealand. He does not even know Assistant Police Commissioner White, I believe, because if he did he would never have said that about a very fine public servant.
I seek leave to table a copy of the motion passed in the European Parliament on Monday, calling for the US Government to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre. It is a motion that would fit nicely on our own Order Paper.
Madam SPEAKER