Terrorism Act sidelines UN: review

A law enabling the Prime Minister to refuse to enact United Nations terrorist designations may put New Zealand in breach of its charter obligations to the body, says a parliamentary committee.

The Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 may also fail to meet international obligations by granting the High Court the power not to renew a designation after three years - even if the group remains on the UN terrorist list.

A third provision relating to charges for those financing terrorism may undermine prosecution efforts, says the foreign affairs, defence and trade committee. All three issues require further scrutiny, its report says.

The committee had to report to Parliament by yesterday on its review of the act, but due to the election, it had limited time to scrutinise it - which has angered some MPs.

Because of the short timeframe, the committee opted against specific recommendations, instead highlighting issues that required more examination, it said.

Greens foreign affairs spokesman Keith Locke said the timeframe for the inquiry had resulted in it being captured by officials.

He recorded a dissenting opinion on the proposed further line of inquiry, arguing that flagged changes could see New Zealanders "defined as terrorists and having their assets seized, even if the Government knew at the time they were not terrorists".

National's foreign affairs spokesman, Murray McCully, also believed the time set aside was inadequate.

The act implements obligations passed unanimously by the UN Security Council in the wake the September 11 attacks. It targets those who raise funds for terrorism and provides for terrorists' property to be frozen.

The report revealed that police have received no reports about property owned or controlled by terrorists since the act came into force.

Mr Locke said yesterday that officials were pushing the "undemocratic line that our Prime Minister has no right to challenge or not accept any UN terrorist designation, and the High Court has no right to conduct any reviews."

He believed common sense and international law said otherwise - especially if New Zealand knew the designations were wrong.

The UN had already admitted it had made erroneous designations, he said.

The report also says that while some countries have topped up the UN designations with others of their own, New Zealand has simply relied on the UN list.

Australia has made an additional 88 designations of groups or individuals, and Canada has listed about 59.

Mr McCully asked: "How is it credible that in Australia and Canada they have designated so many additional organisations on top of the UN list and we have not?

"It raises very serious questions that need answers and we intend to explore them."

Justice Minister Mark Burton said he was "satisfied that the laws we currently have in place provide a good basis for meeting New Zealand's security requirements".