KEY POINTS:
Legislation aimed at further tightening anti-terrorism laws has come in for fresh criticism with the Law Society joining a chorus of calls for significant changes.
The Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill would make the commission of a terrorist act a new general offence, allow courts to consider classified information without giving it to defendants and make life harder for groups designated as terrorist organisations.
But the bill, which aims to update the current law, has come under attack from MPs and human rights advocates who say it is too heavy-handed, denies defendants natural justice and blunts existing democratic rights.
Last week, the Human Rights Commission called for the legislation to be shelved and rewritten and, yesterday, the society also suggested several changes.
The society's legislative committee spokesman, Aaron Lloyd, told MPs yesterday it was unclear why a new terrorist offence was warranted when most things which would constitute a terrorist act were already a crime.
The new offence risked some people facing a life sentence for relatively minor crimes and the inconsistency would create headaches for prosecutors deciding what charge to lay.
The society recommended the new offence be dropped from the legislation and changes instead be made to sentencing guidelines so links to terrorism could be made a serious aggravating factor in sentencing.
The society also believed in defendants' rights to natural justice - part of which was allowing an advocate to test claims made against them.
It recommended judges should be able to appoint a special counsel to view and cross-examine classified information on behalf of a defendant.
To protect the security of the information, the counsel could be vetted and unrelated to the accused's defence team.
While the society's recommendation would only partly satisfy natural justice requirements, it was a compromise that recognised sensitivity around classified information received from foreign intelligence agencies.
Mr Lloyd told Parliament's foreign affairs, defence and trade select committee the society also believed additional checks and balances were needed in relation to terrorist designations.
Under the bill, groups designated as terrorists by the United Nations would be automatically designated by New Zealand.
Locally-designated groups would lose the right to a three-yearly review of their status. That responsibility would fall to the prime minister who is also responsible for designating them in the first place.
Mr Lloyd said the society believed groups designated either internationally or locally should have recourse to an independent review undertaken by the courts, possibly in conjunction with the Inspector-General of Intelligence.
The society's concerns echo those of Chief Human Rights Commissioner Rosslyn Noonan who last week told the select committee it was "fundamentally flawed".
She said the bill should be shelved and substantially rewritten to ensure there were adequate checks and balances to protect people's human rights.
- NZPA
