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. Many individuals and organisations have however been designated as "Terrorist entities" under the Act's provisions, in line with UN Security Council designations. The Act was amended in 2007. In May 2019, a charge of engaging in a terrorist act was laid against the alleged shooter in the Christchurch mosque attacks, under section 6A of the Act.
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. Due to these incidents, New Zealand had already established prior to this act, "A comprehensive legislative and substantive counter-terrorist framework..." 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. The examples he gave were the Lockerbie bombing, the World Trade Centre bombing and the Nairobi embassy attack.
Passage
Introduction
Goff introduced the Terrorism (bombings and financing) bill to parliament on 3 May 2001. Seen by many as simply the enactment of two recent international conventions, the bill was considered unremarkable and garnered widespread lukewarm support. 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. 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. 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." 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." 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. 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. 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. 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.