Where to draw the line on terror
However, critics are warning the move could come at a steep price, specifically a loss of civil liberties.
The proposed changes, still in the closed-door consultation phase with a handpicked selection of groups and experts, would give police and intelligence agencies broader powers to intervene earlier, redefine what constitutes a 'terrorist act' and expand preventative detention powers, all in the name of public safety.
Today, The Detail speaks with Newsroom national affairs editor Sam Sachdeva and University of Waikato terrorism and firearms expert Alexander Gillespie about the potential changes to the Terrorism Suppression Act and how the Government will balance risk without resorting to overreach.
'What this is really about is are our current terror laws fit for purpose, and where do we draw the line between dealing with the very real threat that is posed by terrorist groups and terrorists, while still preserving the fundamental political freedoms and rights and liberties that all New Zealanders hold dear,' Sachdeva tells The Detail.
He says critics, worried that those freedoms and rights are now at risk, are fired up.
'Look, they are. We have seen the Council for Civil Liberties, [and] the Free Speech Union has now come out as well, expressing some concern about this.
'So, it's early stages, but it seems like it's something that could quite easily animate or light a fire under a lot of these rights groups who are concerned.'
The terror law, enacted in 2002 following the September 11 terror attacks, allows governments to formally designate people or groups as terrorist entities, freezing their assets and making it illegal to financially support, recruit for, or participate in a designated terrorist entity.
Minor changes were made after the March 15 terror attack in 2019 and the New Lynn Countdown Supermarket attack in 2021.
Sachdeva says among the new potential changes are making membership of a terrorist entity a criminal offence, creating new offences to capture public expressions of support for a terrorist act or designated entities – including showing insignia – and modernising definitions for terms like 'material support' to capture new online forms of support.
Extending the renewal period for terrorist designations to five years, from three at present, is also being considered.
The Government says there will be safeguards and judicial oversight. The proposed changes are expected to go before Parliament later this year.
Professor of International Law Al Gillespie, speaking to The Detail from Vienna, where he is working on gun reforms, says the threat of a terror attack has long lingered in New Zealand, and while the likelihood of another attack will never be zero, the risk can be lowered.
'Part of reducing that risk is making sure the law is as good as it can be. That the balance between civil liberties and risk is correct. And that we have proportionate penalties for those who are willing to advocate the use of violence against civilians to change policy.
'I support looking at it … I think it's foreseeable that the tensions in our society are going to be around for the foreseeable future. And to make sure they are fit for purpose, because when I look back at recent times, our laws weren't fit for purpose, and now we need to be thinking, 'What more can we do?''
While the debate on security versus liberty and protection versus principle will undoubtedly continue, one thing is certain – in the fight against terror, New Zealand is searching for a line, but it will not be easy to draw.
Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here.
You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
When it's worth waiting for democracy
Photo: RNZ / Nate McKinnon Undemocratic and a breach of human rights. That is what most experts and officials think of the government's proposed changes to the electoral law. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith last week announced a suite of changes around who can vote and how they do so. Those include more opportunity for digital enrolment methods and introduce automatic enrolment updates. But the big one is the moving of the enrolment deadline. At the last election, you could rock up on election day, enrol and cast your vote at the same time. But under this bill New Zealanders would have to enrol 13 days before election day to be eligible to vote. Goldsmith says it is to ensure a final election result is achieved sooner, but he is being met with fierce critics, including from some within his own party, who think the change takes things a step too far. While entities like the Ministry of Justice can - and do - offer advice in the form of policy papers and regulatory impact statements, electoral law expert Graeme Edgeler says the final decision falls on the shoulders of who New Zealanders have elected to represent them - the politicians. "The government and the MPs are the ones that are elected, so they get to make the policy calls and argue for them and the opposition, if they want to, gets to argue against them," he says. Edgeler says the Ministry of Justice had its own suggestions for reducing the number of special votes, for example, automatic enrolment updates. "So if you tell MSD, 'here's my new address,' they'll tell the Electoral Commission, 'hey, this person has updated their address with us'; the Electoral Commission will see person's already enrolled ... and so your enrolment should be updated automatically now," he says. The government took this suggestion on board, but Edgeler says stopping enrolment 13 days before election day takes things a step further. Goldsmith told RNZ that people do not start coalition negotiations until they know the final outcome . But while it might be a political preference to wait until the special votes are counted, Edgeler says there is nothing legally stopping politicians from starting negotiations as soon as election day finishes. "The John Key-led National government, when it was first elected, it had its coalition negotiations complete and John Key was sworn in as prime minister before the special votes were announced," he says. Edgeler says that is because the initial count on election night made the result clear, and he thinks that was the case with the last election as well. "Prime Minister Chris Hipkins came out on election night and said, 'we've lost, we're not going to be the next government'," he says. National, Act and NZ First could have started coalition negotiations that same day if they had wanted to, so Edgeler does not think special votes delaying coalition negotiations is a good enough reason to push the enrollment deadline out to 13 days. Newsroom political editor Laura Walters confirms that waiting until the final result is announced before starting negotiations is the preference of some political leaders. "Winston Peters, the New Zealand First leader, he doesn't like to actually start negotiations proper, if you will, until they have that final result back," she says. Walters says Peters told her advanced enrollment also benefited political parties. "He said if people don't enroll ahead of that voting period how do they know who they're campaigning to, who their message should be pushed towards," she says. David Seymour was more blunt in his support of the change, saying only "dropkicks" enroll on election day. But Walters says those "dropkicks" include quite a broad sector of society. "What we do know from Electoral Commission data is that these people tend to be younger, we've also seen a higher proportion of Māori and Pasifika and Asian, but especially Māori," she says. Walters adds renters and people who move around a lot and forget to update their enrollment details as people who might also be caught out by these changes. Exactly how many people will be impacted by this change is unclear, but if last election is anything to go by, Walters expects the number of people impacted is in the hundreds of thousands. "There were 450,000 people who registered or enrolled to vote during that advanced voting period and 110,000 people did that on election day," she says. It is these figures which the Attorney General Judith Collins referenced in her report examining whether or not there was enough justified reason behind the changes to the election law. She ruled that denying voters the political franchise is a "heavy price" to pay just to have the election result a week or two sooner. Aside from the automatic enrollment update, Walters says reaction to the bill has been mostly negative. "Essentially people are saying nothing should ever be done to suppress or reduce the number of people who are able to vote. Anyone who is eligible to vote, eligible to register to vote, should be given every opportunity to exercise that right. "Is this worth it? Should the government and the Electoral Commission be bearing a little bit more administrative cost, a little bit more administrative burden, maybe waiting a little bit longer after the election to get the results, isn't that just the cost of democracy?" Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here . You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter .
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
What the Government's passport decision says about priorities
Behind the bureaucratic brushing-off lies a choice with cultural weight: English back on top, te reo Māori quietly repositioned. Photo / Getty Opinion It's official: ' New Zealand ' is being bumped back to the top of our passports, before ' Aotearoa '. Let's applaud the Government's focus. Amid the cost-of-living crisis, record wait times in healthcare, and a beleaguered housing market, we've taken a bold stand ... on passport wording. Because what better way to
Otago Daily Times
2 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Letters to the Editor: nitrate, milk and mallards
Today's Letters to the Editor from readers cover topics including the risk of nitrate poisoning in Gore, the price of milk products, and a magic moment for a mallard. Think again on overdue fines clamp down plan The government will trial new technology which will help clamp and seize cars of people evading paying court fines, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says. There are some obvious and yet poorly considered difficulties with his measure. Many of those who incur fines have other liabilities such as child support arrears and debt to third tier lenders. Compounding this paradigm will not result in compliance. You cannot get blood from a stone. I sense that many of the cars clamped or impounded will be non-compliant — that is without WoF or registration. The relevant authorities will quickly accumulate scrap metal, and there is no shortage of old and non-compliant cars to replace those seized. The measure will restrict urban mobility, which means important family connectivity will be lost: those who work will be unable to do so, and school absenteeism will worsen. That said, the obvious work around will be to use a vehicle belonging to someone else. Enforcement costs will also exponentially exceed repaid fines. The solution is for realistic and structured deductions to be made electronically at source irrespective of its source. The reality is that many who owe fines are deprived and recipients of state support — life is difficult enough without the burden of fines — perhaps the expectation of payment should be considered before their imposition. Doing butter better One size fits all. Yeah right. If one size for all is wrong, then how can one price for butter, the export price, be right for all? It seems to me that the reason we are being told that one price is right is because one company has been allowed to dominate. What to do? One answer would be to break up the company. That is not likely to be palatable. Another would be to make remaining one company dependent upon looking after the domestic market. One price for exports, another lower price for the domestic market. Under the current arrangement, winning for Fonterra on prices, means losing for domestic consumers, other businesses, inflation and interest rates. Two prices and we could have win-win. If that change was made then I might agree with Fonterra's slogan on their website: "You, me, us together. Tãtou, tātou. Let us make it so. Those were the days Over 50 years ago, when our family first came to New Zealand, milk was price-controlled by government to 4c a pint. I think it actually cost about 25c a pint, but 4c was what you paid wherever you bought it. I think most New Zealanders would think this was a good use of public funds . Or you could insist Fonterra sell half the New Zealand requirement at a reduced price (as part of a licence to operate) and the government pay for the other half. Or better still, make Fonterra foot the whole bill and cap public company salaries at $750,000 a year. If it was done 50 years ago surely it could be done now. The modern equivalent would be making a one-litre can of milk 50 or 60c. This would affect everyone and could easily be transferred to the price of locally sold butter and cheese. Share the street On the subject of Albany St, why not just slow the traffic right down and make it a shared street? This would mean minimum disruption and cost, no loss of car parks and no removal of trees. Misfortune for mallard source of mirth for others Salutations to Stephen Jaquiery, your stellar photographer. His front page depiction ( ODT 25.7.25) of the mallard's icebound touchdown in the botanical gardens is a stunning tribute to his eye for capturing a magic moment, and his tenancity in waiting for it to happen. Fighting inflation I had a good laugh today at Ian Pillan's thoughts about a councillor's outraged reaction to questions surrounding fiddling with Albany St carparks ( ODT 26.7.25). It is a sad fact that the world is ruled by men, even in the 21st century still. Another sad fact that occurs to me is that many men, even with small amounts of power, have a very inflated sense of their own worth, often despite evidence to the contrary. We have some flagrant examples right around the world, at the moment, from Israel to Gaza to the US and elsewhere. I'd love the world to give women a proper go at it. It would be hard to do worse. State of Southland rivers in which I once fished and swam appalls The risk of nitrate poisoning has turned off tap water in Gore during the last weekend. Elevated nitrate levels, as we know now can cause health problems especially with pregnant women and babies. This is a fact that has been with us for many years now and the link has been made with intensive dairying. Ground water and many source streams and springs are utilised in town supplies and domestic outlying communities. This is a potentially dangerous situation, that despite warnings from health professionals and especially a fresh water ecologist Dr Mike Joy, is continuing. Greenpeace has now become involved to try and draw attention to this dilemma by doing what Greenpeace does; a little signage and minor vandalism. Now the irony. As Russel Norman points out after Federated Farmers Southland calls for Greenpeace to be stripped of its charity status. The SFF president Mr Herrick stated that the famous brown trout statue was made to look as if it had died.( ODT 24.7.25). Well the plastic trout may look dead but its real river lookalikes in many rivers are not there any longer because of abstraction and pollution (all smaller rivers and streams in Otago, Southland and Canterbury are polluted and or depleted). I know personally because as a youngster I fished and swam in all of them and even drank the water. Even the mighty Mataura River is suffering. There are over 600,000 dairy cows in Southland now. It might be time for Federated Farmers Southland to accept that intensive dairying threatens the wellbeing of others, see the water as common to all citizens, and really think about the role of Greenpeace in trying to keep our whenua safe. No to chemical fertilisers In the middle of the last century Americans brought chemical fertilisers to New Zealand and demonstrated how easy they are to use. Farmers adopted them and initially drilled superphosphate into the soil when sowing pasture or crops. This did little damage. From the 1980s farmers, particularly dairy farmers, added nitrogen to fading pastures by topdressing with synthetic nitrogen. This practice created runoff into nearby streams and rivers polluting the water and changing the environment. Recently it has been reported that the Gore drinking water had a reading of 11.4mg per litre of nitrogen. The recommended limit level of nitrates in drinking water in the USA is 10mg/L. Any level of nitrogen in drinking water is damaging to health, especially to young children and babies. Federated Farmers Southland president Jason Herrick seems to think that farming to the limit of drinking water impregnation is passable. I don't, the lowest amount of pollution is to be aimed for. The health and safety of our people should be of paramount importance. There is no longer an excuse for using chemical fertilisers in farming. Over the last few years research into regenerative farming using deep-rooted legumes in pasture by Professor Pablo Gregorini and medical researcher Dr Sagara Kumara at Lincoln University proved that organic/regenerative methods are more economic and produce as much produce as industrial methods. In fact, regenerative methods produce healthier soils, animals and healthier produce for people. It's here too There is no doubt about the origins of increased nitrates in Gore ground water. The same problem has appeared in Selwyn, Waimate and many other places in the Canterbury Plains and Otago low country for decades. A solid body of peer reviewed scientific papers show that elevated nitrate levels come primarily from large herds of dairy cows on bare ground during winter grazing regimes. In the absence of plant material the nitrates seep down to aquifers sometimes over a few days after heavy rain. Regional councils, which have the legal responsibility and authority to prevent this from happening, have known about the issue for at least 20 years. To suggest farmers and local authorities don't know the source of this threat to human health is disingenuous at best. Cottage owner backed My good friend Lou, of Crossans Cottage ( ODT 26.7.25) fame, has been dealt a low blow by the Central Otago District Council and I wish to express my anger, disappointment and confusion at the actions of council. (Oh I forgot to add frustration.) The council seems happy to hand out permission to those with bulging back pockets to build whatever, wherever and whenever but when it comes to this amazing woman who saw a dream in a few dilapidated stone walls to call it her own they have made her dream a nightmare. With the blessing of the descendants of the original owners she put in the hard yards to create an orchard and an amazing garden, which has made her self sufficient, alongside the most beautiful living space. No electricity but that's not a bother. I have been witness to an extraordinary Christmas cake being cooked in the oven of the coal range. Come on CODC show your softer side (if you have one) and accord this lady some empathy and a bit of gratitude for the fact she has restored our heritage in her own way. Draft apology Can we say to the CODC to pull its horns in, and cease its harassment of Mrs Lou Farrand ? One of the charms of Roxburgh is its collection of delightful old stone buildings, reeking of history. They would rather she demolish, and live on the streets? I offer this draft letter from the council to Mrs Farrand, which it may wish to consider sending her: "Dear Mrs Farrand, We write to apologise most abjectly for the high-handed bureaucratic thuggery we had inadvertently visited upon you, and at your stage of life. Indeed, we must thank you, and congratulate you, for your public-spirited work in maintaining your cottage as part of the lovely historic fabric of your wee town. How wonderful that it used to be a blacksmith shop. We want to ensure that your final years are spent in comfort in your delightful cottage, in full enjoyment of the way you have made it to be, free from outside aggravation. We acknowledge that, for all our local laws and regulations, Charles Dickens had a point, and hereby withdraw all financial demands, and will reimburse you for those already made. Apologetically, &c." My fee for providing this letter will be a great deal less than the four figure amount the council has levelled at Mrs Farrand. Providing peace We are a group of older Dominican women and are very concerned about the money and resources being put into armaments. NATO countries have increased their spending and it seems to us like an arms race we have experienced in our lifetime. This did not lead to protection or peace in the past and we are sure it will not do so now. The result was war on a large scale. It is of considerable concern to see that our government is following this trend and lauding evermore war preparations. A recent Faith and Reason column (Opinion ODT 18.7.25) provides statistics on what is happening. We do know what will prove to provide for peace is a very different direction. It will be to provide adequate shelter for everyone, healthcare from cradle to the grave, lifelong education, mutual respect for differences, giving shelter to migrants and care of our common home the earth. Sitting back How long does the world sit back and watch the appalling genocide of the Palestine people? Of all the countries in the world I would have thought Israel would have been the last country considering what they endured during World War 2, yet they are doing exactly the same to the people of Palestine. We have learned nothing from history I can't believe the world sits back and watches Israel kill innocent men women and children with the backing of many countries around the world. New Zealand led the world in the 80s with its anti-nuclear stance, although that didn't stop the warmongers of the world. But it made a statement to the world: as yet we hear no outrage from this government. Let's start by kicking the Israeli ambassador out of the country and to stay out till a ceasefire and peace talks begin Palestinians are dying in their thousands not only by bullets but by starvation possibly the worse kind of death imaginable. How many deaths is the world willing to put up with before they do something? Council thanked I would like to thank our Dunedin city councillors for their support of the Green Party's proposal to sanction Israeli politicians for occupying Palestinian territory. Night after night we see on our television screens the unimaginable suffering of Palestinian men, women and children whose only crime is to be born Palestinian and live in Gaza. One feels so helpless wondering why the rest of the world appears to do so little to stop this appalling situation. Now I hope other political bodies will follow the example of our council. Government complicity If I was to judge New Zealanders reactions to, and opinions of, the horror being played out in Gaza, by our government's official response, I could be forgiven for thinking that as a nation we deem this to be just another one of those conflicts in foreign parts; a situation where both sides are similarly responsible and should get around the table and sort out their differences. Winston Peters and the government's response appears to be driven by how other nations are responding (waiting for the other bystanders to speak out) rather than reflecting, not only the outrage but the emotional reaction of normal New Zealanders in the street and on the couch. Many of us are moved to tears or physically sickened by the daily stories and images representing the systematic destruction of the Palestinian people. To most decent people around the world, this is genocide. New Zealand was once considered a leader in international issues; speaking out against racism, environmental issues, climate change, anti-nuclear stance, to name just a few. However, this government has swiftly reduced us to a nation of followers happy to wait for other nations to act first before we squeak "yeah us too!" Our government will go down in history as having sat on its hands and waited until it was too late and thus become complicit in the horror. A little to give I note Givealittle has made it virtually impossible to get any money into Gaza for fear this money might fall into the hands of Hamas, even when the money is gathered for a known family in Gaza. This ostensibly because under New Zealand's Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism regime the funds could fall into the hands of Hamas, designated as a "terrorist" entity. So, while Gaza burns, while Israel deliberately minimises access to life necessities such that we see many civilians starving and even more children dying, Givealittle is concerned the funds could be used by someone linked to Hamas. So do we just look on helplessly as Mr Netanyahu and his government continue their deadly purge? Forgetting never again The meaning of "never again" has been forgotten. What has been remembered is the historic lesson on how to implement the process of destroying a specific group people. How is this done? Over decades you bully, humiliate, stigmatise, control and dehumanise the group. You systematically destroy cultural institutions — schools, universities, museums, places of worship and anything else that expresses the identity of the people. You move them from place to place, surveil their every move, destroy their homes, farmland and orchards. In the process you destroy communities, sow hatred and suspicion and also teach your children to hate. You deny your actions are responsible for the formation of resistance groups. You then use a horrific revenge attack as an excuse to destroy the entire population. Bomb and starve, cut off aid and blame it all on the people themselves. Prevent any objective reporting by banning journalists and assassinating local journalists. Convince the world that what you have done must never be seen in a negative light because of your past suffering. As the eternal victim no one can speak out against you. Governments and the media play the game. Stay silent, let the suffering continue until the broken and destroyed people can be hidden. Your greatest success may be that you will have destroyed memory. What? Did these people ever exist? The land was always yours. What happened to "never again"? Will our government and others ever take meaningful action or will they remain complicit? Solar farm In response to Ian Breeze on the proposed Helios Energy solar farm (Letters ODT 23.7.25), the benefits from photovoltaic power in lowering carbon emissions are real, but such facilities are not environmentally neutral as is suggested. Over a decade, I drove weekly between Durham and London along the M1 motorway and saw multiple building sites in designated areas of natural beauty. At first, I assumed this was housing but after the first photovoltaic panels appeared I realised this was different. Working at the Durham Energy Institute, (on nuclear power) I asked colleagues about what this was about; farmers were paid to set aside land for environmental reasons and the panels, in theory, are not buildings. Therefore, Peter Rabbit could frolic as usual and plants can grow around the infrastructure. This has not turned out to be true; the environment was impacted; this is a form of creeping urbanisation, a curse that affects countries in Europe as much its does New Zealand. There is a better way. In many countries planning consent for all new buildings can include mandatory rooftop solar. Tax credits are available for converting existing roof tops and carparks. Imagine all the large supermarkets and stores across Dunedin with solar panels on the roof and as shades in the car park? Imagine the impact on energy security as on sunny days we can reduce the hydro output, mitigating the impact of dry years and reducing natural gas imports. We need wind and solar. We are behind the global curve. With our hydropower as a strategic reserve (supplemented by a pumped hydro scheme at Lake Osbourne) we have an opportunity for solar and wind — we are closer to the equator than countries with significant solar power — to provide a secure source of energy. We held a referendum I refer to the letter from Dr Bernard Fouke (Letters ODT 24.7.25) and his statement: "I challenge the government to submit a referendum to let the public decide if the taxing system should be changed to support an adequately sized public system". May I suggest such a referendum has taken place. It was our last general election, both parties put forward their tax policies. Neither proposed a capital gain tax or adjustment to superannuation. During Covid we saw a $60 billion injection primarily for our health response. This is double our annual health budget. The interest on this loan is $3b annually. So the present government is injecting an extra 10% of the health budget into our health system to continue to pay for our Covid response. If 20,000 were saved from death by the government's Covid response, $60b divided by 20,000 equals $3 million per person. The question is, can we borrow more money or change a tax system that many may resist? The consequences will be the next generation will have to pay for the debt we incur today. Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: editor@
