“Which major party would better handle a domestic terror threat?”

Last week I answered a phone survey from a major polling company on current New Zealand political issues.  Among a host of questions on the NZ troop deployment to Iraq, the interviewer asked “which major Party would better handle a domestic terrorist threat in New Zealand?”.

If there ever was a proper domestic terror threat in New Zealand (not another Urewera raid style beat up) I am highly concerned a government led by either major party would support using the Terrorism Suppression Act in response, instead of New Zealand’s tried and tested criminal law.

In 2007 the then Solicitor General, Dr David Collins, described the Terrorism Suppression Act as “unnecessarily complex, incoherent and almost impossible to apply in domestic circumstances…”.

The provisions of the Act are very wide and open to interpretation.  For example even the boundaries of basic definitions such as a ‘terrorist act’ are very unclear.  A court would have to draw limits on what the definition could cover.  Any prosecution under the Act would be a test case where the outcome is unclear.

In contrast the Crimes Act, which includes murder, assault, kidnapping and nearly other offence imaginable, including attempted offences, has a long history and reliable case law behind it.  It would be much easier to prosecute an offence under the Crimes Act than the Terrorism Suppression Act.

Prosecuting would be terrorists under the Crimes Act also has an added psychological effect.  The Terrorism Suppression Act specifies it is for offences motivated by an ‘ideological, political or religious cause’.  In many countries those committing crime for a recognised religious or political cause are given a higher status in the public mind than ordinary common criminals.

A prosecution under the Crimes Act would signify New Zealand considers those wanting to commit acts of violence against the public for political or religious reasons are no different than ordinary criminals and should be viewed accordingly.

National have been enthusiastic users of the Act.  Since 2010 John Key has used his power to designate 19 groups not on the UN list of Al-Qaeda and Taliban entities as terrorist entities.  In 2013 Judith Collins as Justice Minister stopped a planned review of the Act by the Law Commission.

The Terrorism Suppression Act was introduced by the then Labour government in 2002.  In recent years some senior Labour MPs, including Annette King, have occasionally expressed misgivings about the Act through Twitter and other mediums.   However, Labour still voted for National’s Countering Terrorist Fighters legislation at the end of last year which relied heavily on the confusing definition of a terrorist act in section 5 of the Terrorism Suppression Act.

To the poll interviewer’s question I answered “neither” but was made to pick either National or Labour.  I reluctantly chose Labour because at least some MPs have expressed misgivings about the Terrorism Suppression Act and Labour did not designate any legitimate national liberation groups as terrorists like National have.  However, neither major party has a great record on this issue.