Terrorism Suppression Act 2002

Last updated

Terrorism Suppression Act 2002
Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg
New Zealand Parliament
Royal assent 17 October 2002
Status: Current legislation

The Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 is New Zealand counter-terrorism legislation passed under the Clark-led Labour government. Enacted following the September 11 attacks in the United States, the Act was designed to better address contemporary terrorism issues, both domestically and abroad. Until May 2019, the Act had not been formally used in a prosecution; however there were several failed attempts by the Crown to do so. [2] Many individuals and organisations have however been designated as "Terrorist entities" under the Act's provisions, in line with UN Security Council designations. [3] The Act was amended in 2007. [4] In May 2019, a charge of engaging in a terrorist act was laid against Brenton Tarrant, the perpetrator of the Christchurch mosque attacks, under section 6A of the Act. [5]

Background

New Zealand, considered a relatively 'safe' country, has experienced few terrorist incidents in its short history. Prior to 2001, incidents included the bombings of a rail bridge near Huntly in 1951, the Wanganui Computer Centre in 1982, the Wellington Trades Hall in 1984 and the Greenpeace vessel The Rainbow Warrior in 1985. [6] Due to these incidents, New Zealand had already established prior to this act, "A comprehensive legislative and substantive counter-terrorist framework..." [7] However the growth of international terrorism in recent years, alluded to by then Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Phil Goff in the bill's first reading, gave rise to the need to introduce new, "comprehensive" anti-terror legislation. [8] The examples he gave were the Lockerbie bombing, the World Trade Centre bombing and the Nairobi embassy attack. [9]

Passage

Introduction

Goff introduced the Terrorism (bombings and financing) bill to parliament on 3 May 2001. [10] Seen by many as simply the enactment of two recent international conventions, the bill was considered unremarkable and garnered widespread lukewarm support. [11] The bill was then sent to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade select committee for review and submissions.

September 11 attacks and select committee

The day of the attacks, a special ministerial statement session was held at the beginning of parliament, in which Deputy Prime Minister Jim Anderton, amongst others, gave their condolences for those killed, with Anderton moving a motion to express New Zealand's "shock and horror" at the events. [12] What followed was a dramatic shift in pace at the select committee level, with many submitters feeling that they did not have enough time to review and make submissions on the increasing amendments that the committee was making in the wake of the attacks. [13] Proponents of the bill claimed that this urgency was a matter of necessity given the threat posed by terrorism, however opponents claimed that this legislative process eroded the public's right to proper consultation. For instance in its submission on the bill the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (Aotearoa), an organisation with consultative status with the United Nations, claimed to be, "dismayed at the extremely short length of time" and did not, "consider such a time period to be sufficient for...such a complex, and extreme, piece of legislation." [14] This was echoed in the submission by the Human Rights Commission, stating that, "There has been limited opportunity for public discussion and preparation of submissions." [15] Nonetheless, the New Zealand government, following several other governments around the world, broadened its own powers in the bill. Greener-Barcham claims that this was in order, "To be part of a broader anti-terrorist effort" and to, "Strengthen ties with 'like-minded states'" following the September 11 attacks and President Bush's call to arms. [16] This shift in mentality was reflected in the bill's renaming from the Terrorism (Bombing and Financing) bill to the Terrorism Suppression bill.

Final readings and royal assent

Due to the alterations made in the select committee stage, the bill became hotly debated during the committee of the whole house. For example, Green Party Member of Parliament Keith Locke proposed (unsuccessfully) an amendment which would have changed the bill's name to the, "Civil Liberties Reduction" bill. [17] Despite strong dissent from the Green Party, the bill passed its third reading on 8 October 2002 with multi-party support and 106 votes in favour, with only the 9 Green votes against. [18] The bill received royal assent and became an act on 17 October 2002.

Content of Act

Part 1

Part 1, "Preliminary Provisions," deals with the purpose of the act and its interpretation. [19]

Part 2

Part 2, "Suppression of Terrorism," forms the substantive part of the act's offences. [20] It also deals with some of the other most significant aspects of the act, the designation of terrorist entities, organisations and individuals, in sections 20–42. It creates the offences of:

Part 3

Part 3, "Miscellaneous provisions," deals primarily with the obligations on the New Zealand attorney general. [21] These include to:

The penalties within the act are severe, with most offences carrying either 14 years or life imprisonment (the harshest penalty available in New Zealand). [22]

2007 New Zealand police raids

In October 2007, the NZ Police carried out several raids across New Zealand and arrested 17 individuals, charging them under the Terror Suppression Act for involvement in so-called "military style training camps." [23] For the prosecutions to go ahead the attorney general's consent under section 67 of the act was required. Under delegated authority from then Attorney General Michael Cullen, then solicitor general David Collins announced on 8 November 2007 that he was:

...Unable to authorise the prosecutions that have been sought under the Terrorism Suppression Act. There is insufficient evidence to establish to the very high standard required that a group or entity was planning or preparing to commit a terrorist act, as that term is defined in the legislation. [24]

As a result of this decision, the charges under the act were dropped as were any form of prosecution of the vast majority of those arrested. Only firearms charges against four of the accused were eventually successful. [25] Because of Collin's criticism that the act was, "Unnecessarily complex" and, "Incoherent" he recommended the act be sent to the law commission for review. [26]

Amendment Act 2007

Following the 2007 raids, the government introduced a major overhaul of the act (an amendment bill was already before parliament). The amendment was to correct inconsistencies with UN and UN Security Council requirements and replace the role of the High Court in extending terrorist designations with the prime minister. [27] It also introduced new "nuclear material" provisions. [28] Of most significance was the amendment's redefining of several of the offences in the act:

In doing so, the threshold to commit either offence was considerably lowered, in large part to correct the issues highlighted by the solicitor general. The Terrorism Suppression Amendment Act 2007 came into force on 19 November 2007.

Criticism

The Act as a whole has been criticised by some as placing too much power in the hands of the executive. Whereas the court formerly made findings of fact, in regards to the designation of terrorist entities the responsibility has been given to the prime minister. Such a designation carries with it strict penalties under the act in terms of association and membership. Some have claimed that this may lead to the act being used politically to quell dissidents rather than actual terrorists. [31] Human rights groups have also raised concerns over whether convictions based on a wrongful designation will nevertheless remain upheld. [32] The most recent periodic review of the act (in line with the review regime within the act) was cancelled in 2013 by then Justice Minister Judith Collins. Green Party co-leader Russel Norman claims this is because the government "is unwilling to risk further public scrutiny of the state's search and surveillance powers." [33]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Terrorism Act 2000</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Terrorism Act 2000 is the first of a number of general Terrorism Acts passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It superseded and repealed the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989 and the Northern Ireland Act 1996. It also replaced parts of the Criminal Justice Act 1998. The powers it provides the police have been controversial, leading to noted cases of alleged abuse, and to legal challenges in British and European courts. The stop-and-search powers under section 44 of the Act have been ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New Zealand Security Intelligence Service</span> National intelligence agency of New Zealand

The New Zealand Security Intelligence Service is New Zealand's primary national intelligence agency. It is responsible for providing information and advising on matters including national security and foreign intelligence. It is headquartered in Wellington and overseen by a Director-General, the Minister of New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, and the parliamentary intelligence and security committee; independent oversight is provided by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.

There is no universal agreement on the legal definition of terrorism, although there exists a consensus academic definition created by scholars.

Three anti-terrorism bills were enacted in the Australian Parliament in 2004 by the Howard Coalition government with the support of the Labor Opposition. These were the Anti-terrorism Bill 2004, the Anti-terrorism Bill 2004 and the Anti-terrorism Bill 2004.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Terrorism Act 2006</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Terrorism Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that received royal assent on 30 March 2006, after being introduced on 12 October 2005. The Act creates new offences related to terrorism, and amends existing ones. The Act was drafted in the aftermath of the 7 July 2005 London bombings, and some of its terms have proven to be highly controversial. The government considered the act a necessary response to an unparalleled terrorist threat; it has encountered opposition from those who feel that it is an undue imposition on civil liberties, and could increase the terrorism risk.

A security risk certificate is part of a New Zealand legal process whereby a person suspected of being a security risk can be incarcerated prior to expulsion from the country.

Terrorism financing is the provision of funds or providing financial support to individual terrorists or non-state actors.

Anti-terrorism legislation are laws with the purpose of fighting terrorism. They usually, if not always, follow specific bombings or assassinations. Anti-terrorism legislation usually includes specific amendments allowing the state to bypass its own legislation when fighting terrorism-related crimes, under alleged grounds of necessity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990</span> New Zealand statute

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand part of New Zealand's uncodified constitution that sets out the rights and fundamental freedoms of anyone subject to New Zealand law as a bill of rights, and imposes a legal requirement on the attorney-general to provide a report to parliament whenever a bill is inconsistent with the bill of rights.

From 2000 to 2015, the British Parliament passed a series of Terrorism Acts that were aimed at terrorism in general, rather than specifically focused on terrorism related to Northern Ireland. The timings were influenced by the September 11, 2001 attacks and 7 July London bombings, as well as the politics of the global War on Terrorism, according to the politicians who announce them as their response to a terrorism act.

New Zealand has experienced few terrorist incidents in its short history and the threat is generally regarded as very low. However, the Security Intelligence Service (SIS) has warned against complacency. This article serves as a list and compilation of past acts of terrorism, attempts of terrorism, and other such items pertaining to terrorist activities within New Zealand. Significant acts of terrorism include the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in 1985, and the Christchurch mosque shootings in 2019, which killed 51 people and injured 40 others.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007</span> New Zealand law concerning corporal punishment

The Crimes Amendment Act 2007 is an amendment to New Zealand's Crimes Act 1961 which removed the legal defence of "reasonable force" for parents prosecuted for assault on their children.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act</span> Indian law to prevent unlawful activities

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is an Indian law aimed at prevention of unlawful activities associations in India. Its main objective was to make powers available for dealing with activities directed against the integrity and sovereignty of India. The most recent amendment of the law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 has made it possible for the Union Government to designate individuals as terrorists without following any formal judicial process. UAPA is also known as the "Anti-terror law".

The voting rights of prisoners in New Zealand have been in a near constant state of flux since the first election in New Zealand in 1853. Prisoners have experienced varying degrees of enfranchisement. In 2010 the Electoral Act 1993 was amended to disqualify all prisoners from voting. In 2020 this law was amended so that only persons serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term of three years or more are disenfranchised. Elections in New Zealand are held every three years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Counter Terrorism Agency</span> Indonesian Government Department

The National Counter Terrorism Agency is an Indonesian non-ministerial government department that works to prevent terrorism. BNPT is headed by a chief, who is responsible to the President. When it was first launched, the leader of BNPT held the ranking of a civil servant but the Presidential Regulation in 2012 elevated the post of BNPT Chief to the ministerial level.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001</span> Malaysian law

The Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 is a Malaysian counter-terrorism legislation. It is enacted to provide for the offence of money laundering, the measures to be taken for the prevention of money laundering and terrorism financing offences and to provide for the forfeiture of property involved in or derived from money laundering and terrorism financing offences, as well as terrorist property, proceeds of an unlawful activity and instrumentalities of an offence, and for matters incidental thereto and connected therewith.

Outlawed terror organisations in New Zealand includes the designation of terrorist entities as a measure the New Zealand Government has established under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 (TSA). The aim of the list of outlawed organisations is to contribute to the international campaign against terrorism. The Act provides for a list of terrorist entities to be established and maintained. The New Zealand Police are responsible for coordinating any requests to the Prime Minister for designation as a terrorist entity. Implications for such designation include outlawing the financing of, participation in and recruitment to, terrorist entities. Designation under New Zealand legislation results in the freezing of any assets of terrorist entities; it is a criminal offence to participate in or support the activities of the designated terrorist entity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Counter-Terrorism Legislation Act 2021</span> Act of Parliament in New Zealand

The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Act 2021 is an Act of Parliament in New Zealand which strengthens counter-terrorism laws, including a provision makes the planning of a terrorist attack a criminal offence. It was fast-tracked through Parliament due to the 2021 Auckland supermarket stabbing. The bill was supported by the Labour and National parties but opposed by the ACT, Green, and Māori parties. The bill received royal assent on 4 October 2021.

References

  1. ↑ Terrorism Suppression Act 2002
  2. ↑ Hamed v R [2012] 2 NZLR 305.
  3. ↑ "Lists associated with Resolution 1337" (20 July 2014) NZ Police http://www.police.govt.nz/advice/personal-community/counterterrorism/designated-entities/lists-associated-with-resolution-1373.
  4. ↑ Terrorism Suppression Amendment Act 2007.
  5. ↑ "Accused mosque shooter now facing terrorism charge". Stuff.co.nz. 21 May 2019. Retrieved 21 May 2019.
  6. ↑ B.K. Greener-Barcham "Before September: A History of Counter-terrorism in New Zealand" (2002) Australian Journal of Political Science at 510–514.
  7. ↑ B.K. Greener-Barcham "Before September: A History of Counter-terrorism in New Zealand" (2002) Australian Journal of Political Science at 514.
  8. ↑ (3 May 2001) 591 NZPD 9001.
  9. ↑ (3 May 2001) 591 NZPD 9001.
  10. ↑ (3 May 2001) 591 NZPD 9001.
  11. ↑ New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties "Submission to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the Terrorism (Bombing and Financing) Bill 2001."
  12. ↑ (12 September 2001) 595 NZPD 11614.
  13. ↑ New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties "Submission to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the Terrorism (Bombing and Financing) Bill 2001."
  14. ↑ Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (Aotearoa) "Submission to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the Terrorism (Bombing and Financing) Bill 2001."
  15. ↑ Human Rights Commission "Submission to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the Terrorism (Bombing and Financing) Bill 2001."
  16. ↑ B.K. Greener-Barcham "Before September: A History of Counter-terrorism in New Zealand" (2002) Australian Journal of Political Science at 514.
  17. ↑ (8 October 2002) 603 NZPD 1090.
  18. ↑ (8 October 2002) 603 NZPD 1148.
  19. ↑ Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, ss1-6.
  20. ↑ Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, ss6A-61.
  21. ↑ Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, ss62-81.
  22. ↑ Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, ss6A-61.
  23. ↑ Hamed v R [2012] 2 NZLR 305.
  24. ↑ David Collins, Solicitor General of New Zealand "Press Release regarding prosecutions under Terrorism Suppression Act|Wellington, New Zealand, 08 November 2007
  25. ↑ Hamed v R [2012] 2 NZLR 305.
  26. ↑ David Collins, Solicitor General of New Zealand "Press Release regarding prosecutions under Terrorism Suppression Act" (Wellington, New Zealand, 8 November 2007).
  27. ↑ Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill 2007 (explanatory note).
  28. ↑ Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill 2007, s14.
  29. ↑ Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill 2007, s11.
  30. ↑ Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill 2007, s12.
  31. ↑ Cameron Walker "The Terrorism Suppression Act" (1 April 2014) New Zealand Human Rights Blog http://nzhumanrightsblog.com/uncategorized/the-terrorism-suppression-act-and-criminalisation-of-national-liberation-groups/.
  32. ↑ Cameron Walker "The Terrorism Suppression Act" (1 April 2014) New Zealand Human Rights Blog http://nzhumanrightsblog.com/uncategorized/the-terrorism-suppression-act-and-criminalisation-of-national-liberation-groups/.
  33. ↑ Adam Dudding "Review of terror laws stopped" (15 September 2013) Stuff http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9166763/Review-of-terror-laws-stopped.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.