Latest news with #TerrorismSuppressionAct
Newsroom
2 days ago
- Politics
- Newsroom
Where to draw the line on terror
The Government is eyeing an overhaul of the country's terrorism legislation, which is necessary, it says, to keep New Zealanders safe in a rapidly evolving world and keep pace with modern threats. 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.
Newsroom
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Newsroom
‘Fine line' needed on terror law changes
Any changes to the country's terrorism laws must acknowledge the fine line between legitimate protest and supporting terrorist activity, Labour leader Chris Hipkins says. Newsroom this week revealed the Government was carrying out closed-door consultations on proposed changes to the Terrorism Suppression Act, which could make it illegal to publicly express support for a designated terrorist entity.
Newsroom
21-07-2025
- Politics
- Newsroom
Planned terrorism law overhaul ‘slippery slope to authoritarianism'
New Zealanders who publicly express support for terrorist groups could be charged with a criminal offence, as part of secretive proposals being considered by the Government. While officials say the changes are a necessary update, one civil liberties group has expressed concerns the law may be misused to suppress free speech on politically contentious issues. The Terrorism Suppression Act, 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. The coalition Government is eyeing reforms to the law, with limited consultation currently taking place behind closed doors with a handpicked selection of groups and experts. In a copy of the consultation document seen by Newsroom, the Ministry of Justice said the Government had agreed to progress 'targeted amendments' to the law, which had not been substantively reviewed since its enactment. The document said existing offences in the law 'don't capture the full range of behaviours or activities of concern that are part of the contemporary threat from terrorism', and needed to be updated. Among the changes being considered were 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 (such as showing insignia or distributing propaganda), and modernising definitions for terms like 'material support' to capture new online forms of support. The consultation document also raised the possibility of a streamlined designation process, saying the current decision-making system was lengthy and the designation period was short. Officials asked those being consulted whether the current requirement to have the Prime Minister review decisions twice 'balances robustness of decision and the speed of decision-making appropriately', as well as whether it was still appropriate for the Attorney-General to be consulted on designation-related decisions. The document also proposed extending the renewal period for terrorist designations to five years, from three at present. In addition, officials outlined a 'disconnect' between the designation framework and the regulation of harmful online content, with designated terrorist entities still able to influence and exploit New Zealanders via online platforms. To address those concerns, content disseminated by a designated entity could be defined as terrorist content, with a mechanism developed to identify and sanction terrorist-operated websites. The NZ Council for Civil Liberties, which was not selected for the targeted consultation process but had been leaked a copy of the document, is concerned with both the secretive nature of the discussions and the changes being proposed. The council's chairperson Thomas Beagle said the Terrorism Suppression Act already gave governments strong powers to outlaw organisations. Misuse of the definition of 'terrorism' in other countries had led to the outlawing of groups that did not engage in violence, with the aim of suppressing free speech on an issue. 'Laws that enable governments to outlaw organisations and any show of support for them are amongst the most dangerous tools the public in any democracy can give to ministers.' Thomas Beagle, NZ Council for Civil Liberties As an example, Beagle cited the British government's decision to designate Palestine Action as a terrorist group, after the group's members broke into a Royal Air Force base and sprayed red paint on refuelling planes to protest the United Kingdom's support of Israel over the war in Gaza. UK home secretary Yvette Cooper argued the move was necessary and followed 'a nationwide campaign of direct criminal action against businesses and institutions', but United Nations experts, Amnesty International and others have accused the Government of legal overreach and criminalising legitimate activities by innocent members of the group. With expressions of support for Palestine Action now a criminal offence in the UK, more than 100 people were arrested at demonstrations over the weekend, many for displaying placards in support of the group. In a separate incident, a protester holding a Palestinian flag and signs saying 'Free Gaza' and 'Israel is committing genocide' was accused of breaching the country's terrorism laws, despite explicitly saying they did not support any designated terror groups. Beagle said the changes being proposed by the Government could easily be misused in similar ways to shut down organisations it did not like politically. 'People will be criminalised not just for being members of an organisation but for expressing support for the issue it was focused on. These are highly dangerous attacks on freedom of expression and freedom of association.' It was 'a disgrace' that the Government's policy work and consultation was taking place behind closed doors, he said, given the expectations of open government 'Laws that enable governments to outlaw organisations and any show of support for them are amongst the most dangerous tools the public in any democracy can give to ministers. 'There is a very strong public interest in consultation on this law reform project being as open as possible. Without it, the government will foment public distrust in its intentions, and in the processes of policy making.' The Government needed to open public consultation to all New Zealanders at an early stage, rather than when a bill was introduced to Parliament, given the proposals could take the country 'further down the slippery slope of authoritarianism'. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says some parts of the Terrorism Suppression Act are no longer fir for purpose. Photo: Lynn Grieveson Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith told Newsroom the changes followed the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch terror attack, which called for a review of all counter-terrorism legislation to ensure it was current and allowed agencies to operate effectively. 'Aspects of the Terrorism Suppression Act are no longer fit for purpose and need to be modernised and future-proofed,' Goldsmith said. The Ministry of Justice's criminal justice general manager Alida Mercuri told Newsroom the proposals were not targeted at any particular group, but were about improving the effectiveness of the designation system. The Terrorism Suppression Act already contained protections against misuse to suppress free speech and non-violent protest, which would not be removed or reduced. Mercuri said a range of agencies, experts, academics and stakeholders 'with relevant experience', including public sector agencies, had been chosen for the targeted consultation process.
NZ Herald
29-06-2025
- Politics
- NZ Herald
US Proud Boys no longer terrorists in NZ as designation lapses
Members of the Proud Boys were involved in the US Capitol riots of 2021. Photo / New York Times Listening to articles is free for open-access content—explore other articles or learn more about text-to-speech. Members of the Proud Boys were involved in the US Capitol riots of 2021. Photo / New York Times Members of the American far-right group the Proud Boys are no longer considered terrorists in New Zealand, as the group's terrorist designation has expired. A notice published on the New Zealand Gazette on June 19 confirmed the group's 2022 designation as a terrorist entity under the Terrorism Suppression Act had lapsed. A spokesperson of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet said the Proud Boys remained 'on the radar' of the Terrorism Designation Working Group. '[I]n due course, officials will consider any new information that arises to support a decision around whether there are reasonable grounds to designate it in accordance with the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002.' While the statement didn't address why the designation wasn't renewed, it detailed how such an action required an entity to 'either knowingly carrying out, or knowingly participating in the carrying out, of an act of terrorism'.
