1. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
What are the names of the United Nations designated groups listed in this country under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, and why have no local groups been listed as a designated terrorist entity?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) Link to this
Close to 500 groups or individuals are designated by the United Nations and consequently designated under the Terrorism Suppression Act. The names are all listed in the New Zealand Gazette and are also on the New Zealand Police website. No advice has been received that designation of any local group is justified at this time.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
Has the Prime Minister read the 2005 report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change, which concluded: “The current war on terrorism has in some instances corroded the very values that terrorists target—human rights and the rule of law.”, and what rights do citizens have to claim compensation for broken windows, school closures, kōhanga reo closures, return trips from Rūātoki to Rotorua to retrieve whānau members who have been released without charge, and any other consequences of yesterday’s enforcement actions?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Members of the public who have grievances against the police can take those up with the Police Complaints Authority. The processes are well laid out in that regard.
Keith LockeDoes the Prime Minister agree that the environmental, peace, and Māori rights movements have a long history of peaceful protests and should not be, in any way, smeared by association with the alleged acts of violence by one or two individuals?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
New Zealand stands for the right to peaceful protest; many of us in this House have engaged in peaceful protest in the past. Indeed, the Terrorism Suppression Act itself is quite specific around that matter. In relation to more recent events—which I presume the member is referring to—we shall see what evidence the police have and what the courts make of that evidence. I am not going to rush to any form of judgment.
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is very, very quiet at the present time. It was extremely difficult to hear Dr Cullen’s answer, and it was also difficult to hear the three questions that have been asked so far. I wonder whether the ear-sets might be turned up a little.
Madam SPEAKERI thank the member. It was very difficult to hear you, Mr Brownlee, at the beginning too, so there is obviously something wrong with the system. [ Interruption] I did not mean that to sound the way it did, actually! Could someone please turn up the volume.
Ron MarkDoes the Prime Minister not agree that, given the events of yesterday, her Government’s decision to repeal the seditious offences currently on the statute book, through the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill, was a mistake, given specifically that the real intent of those laws is to protect lawful authority against violence?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
My understanding is that the reasons why the vast majority of members in the House have voted for the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill is that the kinds of circumstances that are legitimately covered by those offences are adequately covered under other legislation. Of course, the police sought search warrants under both arms legislation and the Terrorism Suppression Act.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Is the Prime Minister concerned that young people and teenagers are currently being held in police cells and prisons for extended periods of time for questioning, due to warrants issued under the Terrorism Suppression Act, and can she absolutely guarantee to the House that they will have their rights upheld, be provided with the legal representation they need, and be kept physically safe while in police custody?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
There is certainly a guarantee that the rights of citizens, whatever their age, will be upheld during these processes. I should point out to members who may not perhaps be fully cognisant of this fact, that the police have to seek warrants under all legislation under which they may lay charges.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
Can the Prime Minister provide the estimated cost of this exercise to maintain the year-long surveillance, and what justification is there for such invasive action on the freedoms of people?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The second part of that question rushes to judgment. The police are acting on the basis of evidence that they believe is sound. Under certain circumstances, the Solicitor-General will need to be satisfied that evidence is sound if charges are laid under the Terrorism Suppression Act. In either case, the courts will make the decision. It is not for this House or any member to start deciding what the facts are.
Hon Bill EnglishCan the Prime Minister explain to the House whether the police have actually invoked any provision of the Terrorism Suppression Act, and whether the people arrested will be treated any differently under that Act from the way they would be in the normal course of events?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
In the latter case, no. The police, as I have indicated, have sought warrants under the Terrorism Suppression Act because in their view there is the possibility that charges may be laid under that Act. If they had not sought warrants for search in relation to that Act, they could not lay such charges.
Does the Prime Minister agree that our very democracy has been established through a long process of peaceful protest, in which she herself has been involved on occasion, and that we need to be very careful that any action taken under the Terrorism Suppression Act, or criminal law, or any Government statement, does not undermine our important right to disagree with the State?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Those rights are fundamental to a democracy, and one of the problems that many democracies face around the world is balancing the exercise of those rights and protecting them properly in an age of international terrorism. I would have to say that I think it is going slightly far to say that our entire democracy has been created on the basis of peaceful protest. That would require a significant rewriting of New Zealand’s history.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
Has the Prime Minister read the comments of Judge Rota, who noted “the uncertainty of the charges”, and, secondly, “scant information before the court” when individuals were brought before the Rotorua District Court yesterday, and what confidence can any member of the public have that this situation is not just a politically contrived exercise to demonstrate—
I am sorry, but the member obviously did not hear my ruling. He is now straying into matters that are sub judice. There are matters before the court. If the member would like to reconsider his question, to bring it within the Standing Orders, that is perfectly all right.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
Has the Prime Minister read the comments of Judge Rota, who noted “the uncertainty of the charges” and “scant information before the court”—
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. As the Speaker knows, I am still a new member of Parliament, despite having been here for 2 years. Can I have one more shot at that question, without that bit?
Yes, the member may, but the member must abide by the sub judice rule and the way it is applied in this House.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. From just listening to the question, and not in any way disputing your ruling, I think it might help the member if you gave him a little bit of guidance on where he might go with this. It seems to me that the application as we are hearing it today is somewhat narrow. That is your prerogative, but it would help the member, I think, to know the parameters and where he can take the question.
I thank the member. Members cannot refer to matters that are already before the courts. The member was explicitly referring to those matters. But by all means he can have another go.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
Would the Prime Minister be concerned about some of the allegations before the court in Rotorua, and what confidence can any member of the public have that this situation is not a politically contrived exercise to demonstrate the impact of the Terrorism Suppression Act?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I think it is fair to say that the Prime Minister would be concerned at any allegations in relation either to arms offences or to the Terrorism Suppression Act. These matters have been dealt with by the police. The police have acted entirely independently. Senior Ministers were briefed after the Commissioner of Police had made up his mind about where he was going, in relation to these matters. The Government does not interfere, and indeed sometimes hearing some of the commentary on this matter, it seems to me that people are calling for the Government to interfere against the police.