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
Newsroom
2 hours ago
- Newsroom
National makes economic pitch after Trump tariffs setback
Analysis: It's the economy, stupid. If the 10-minute cost of living sermon delivered by Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Finance Minister Nicola Willis on Monday left any doubts about where National sees its re-election hopes living (or dying), they were dispelled at the party's annual conference on Saturday. With just four hours open to the media, a full hour was set aside for a not-so-pithily titled session on 'growing the economy to reduce the cost of living for all New Zealanders' – the same time allocated to health, education, law and order, and rural issues combined. Two of Luxon's more reliable performers, Willis and Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop, led the session alongside Tourism Minister Louise Upston in a further sign of the importance placed by the party on assuring members and the wider public they, rather than Labour, are best placed to look after the bottom line. It was a message hammered by Luxon during his own address to the party faithful in Christchurch, saying the fiscal conditions the coalition had inherited from the last Labour government were 'the worst in a generation'. 'The national debt had tripled, inflation hit a thirty-year high, homeowners were crushed by a surge in interest rates, and critical growth industries like agriculture and energy were under constant siege.' While the Government had made progress, many New Zealanders were still struggling to keep up with the cost of living, the Prime Minister conceded. The solution, at least in part? According to Luxon, 'we have to say yes to letting it happen'. 'We can't afford to leave any stone unturned, shut down whole sectors, or just sit around and hope that conditions will improve.' That was the argument behind the policy centrepiece of his speech – a loosening of the rules around granting permits (or concessions, as they are formally known) for commercial activities on Department of Conservation land, while also introducing a charge for foreign tourists at four locations where they made up more than 80 percent of all visitors: Cathedral Cove, Tongariro Crossing, Milford Sound, and Mount Cook. Exactly how the latter element will be put into practice remains somewhat uncertain: 'We have to organise and sort out how that's going to work, but there are ways and means to do that,' Conservation Minister Tama Potaka told journalists, with the four chosen sites functioning as a trial before any wider rollout. Senior ministers Nicola Willis and Chris Bishop led National's defence on its handling of the economy. Photo: Sam Sachdeva The changes to concessions on conservation land attracted criticism from Forest and Bird, which claimed they would 'make it easier to sell off or commercially exploit these areas'. That is an argument unlikely to win favour with the current coalition, as demonstrated by Bishop channelling his inner Shane Jones as he promised the Government's resource management reforms would make it easier to build new wind farms (among other projects). 'We've got the best wind in the world, and we spent years arguing about how we could build wind farms that don't result in the death of just one bird or one lizard, one snail.' It is clear he views the replacement of the much maligned Resource Management Act as a legacy-defining moment for himself and the coalition, emphasising the billions of dollars in compliance costs in the coming decades that could be eradicated with successful reforms. 'That's why I don't get a lot of sleep. That's what keeps me up at night, worrying about it, because we have got to get it right.' As David Parker found, however, such lofty ambitions can swiftly be undone by a political successor, and National will need to find a faster economic fix if it is to be in government long enough for any RMA reforms to bear fruit. One such 'quick win' – the decision to ban surcharges on in-store card payments – has not proved universally popular, with one delegate questioning National's claim to be the party of small business. 'Under [Sir John] Key, we got Mondayisation [of public holidays]. Under Cindy [Dame Jacinda Ardern], we got Matariki, more recently, an extra percent in KiwiSaver, sick days gone from five to 10 days, and now you're looking at getting rid of merchant fees. 'Now the interchange fee is only part of it, so I think we need to reassess that.' Another party member, who worked with small businesses run by migrants and refugees, said many were struggling to pay wages, rent and other costs in the current environment. In return, Willis offered sympathy – 'man oh man, it has been a tough time to be a small business in New Zealand' – but also indicated there was little room for new state support. 'We know where growth and prosperity comes from, and it doesn't actually come from the Government saying, 'I'll write you a cheque. It comes from the Government saying, 'I'll get out of the way and I'll make sure that business people can go and invest and do things and make things and hire people'.' An economic boost could be around the corner, she suggested, with more households due to move onto lower interest rates for their mortgages and free up money to pump back into the economy. That is certainly possible, but there is one rather large complicating factor: the impact of United States President Donald Trump's tariffs. While the Reserve Bank has indicated the tariffs are unlikely to have an inflationary impact on the New Zealand economy, it has also noted household spending and business investment are both significantly hampered by economic uncertainty such as that attached to the Trump tariffs. Friday's unpleasant surprise that New Zealand exports would face a 15 percent tariff into the US, rather than the 10 percent announced back in April, has led the Government to take a slightly more assertive approach to what Luxon labelled a 'rather late decision' from the Trump administration. Trade and Investment Minister Todd McClay told the audience he had spoken to US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on Saturday morning, and was dispatching his 'top trade diplomat' – Vangelis Vitalis – to Washington DC next week for talks. It seems difficult to see Greer or Trump making an exception for New Zealand, however, given 15 percent is the new 'floor' for any country that does not buy more from the US than it sends in the other direction. As Luxon noted, every other country is dealing with the same challenging environment and must forge ahead regardless; any self-pity would risk being seen as hypocrisy, anyway, given he and his ministers have hardly offered Labour any credit for the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on its economic performance in government. 'We can navigate some pretty choppy seas to get to the destination we want to get to, but for that to happen, you've got to have the right people with the hands on the tiller, which is us,' the Prime Minister said. Luxon was at pains to emphasise the coalition was only halfway into its term, with 'a lot of work to do as a government' – but next year's election is creeping ever closer, and he will need some luck to come his way if the economy is to be a trump card rather than a Trump-addled drag on National's vote in 2026.
NZ Herald
4 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Govt's conservation changes spark backlash over land protections
A major overhaul of conservation land law has sparked sharp criticism from Forest & Bird, which accuses the Government of gutting longstanding protections in favour of commercial interests. The Government's intended changes to the Conservation Act, unveiled at the National Party conference in Christchurch yesterday, aims to 'unleash growth'
NZ Herald
10 hours ago
- NZ Herald
The NZ economy is still sick, doubts are growing about the Govt prescription
Are these the right antibiotics? Are the antibiotics making me feel sick? I do feel a little better I think. But it's taking longer than I expected. Maybe I should see the doctor again. Or am I just being impatient? Ugh, so much uncertainty. Hopefully, those who've tuned in for a fresh read on the state of the economy can see where this is going. Never let a metaphor go by, I say! Anyway, here's me and the New Zealand economy, both sick in the midst of a miserable wet winter and worrying about whether our recoveries have stalled. A run of negative data has knocked the wind out of the nation's sails. The bad vibes are being pushed along by a strong political current. Both the left and right are telling us that the Government has prescribed the wrong medicine. The left blames the Government for cutting spending into a downturn. The logic is pretty simple. Any good Keynesian will tell you, when demand in the private sector falls, that's the time for the Government to come to the party. Borrow a bit more, don't slash and burn civil service, hire more teachers and nurses, build more stuff ... it won't be inflationary because it won't be crowding out private sector competition, which is in recession. The trouble is, we're still in the aftermath of the last big spend-up, which went on too long. Labour's stimulus, once we got through the initial Covid shock, did clash with a private sector boom and exacerbated inflation. That muddied the political narrative. It made it inevitable that the incoming centre-right coalition would cut back despite the extra damage that would do to economic growth. In the context of using fiscal policy to drive economic prosperity, you can make a good case that successive governments have got things completely arse about face. You'd expect this argument from the left. But Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis are being savaged even more aggressively from their right flank. The monetarists, the supply-side guys, the neo-liberals, (whatever you want to call them) are berating the Government for not dealing with the national debt and Crown deficit by administering a Rogernomics-style reboot of the whole economy. I doubt that would make the current downturn any more pleasant, but they argue it couldn't be much worse. And the payoff would be longer-term gains as the economy found a more productive and financially secure baseline. Both arguments can be compelling and, if nothing else, add to the concern that the current strategy of subtle market-oriented tweaks risks underdelivering on all sides. But through all of this gloom, one thing we need to remember is that most economists still believe the foundations of recovery are in place. Step back a bit from the mess of ugly recent economic data – the second quarter sucked, we get it! What are we actually experiencing? The labour market is tough. Unemployment is rising, and new job creation is almost non-existent. But this is not a surprise. In fact, while economists do get things wrong, they've been forecasting unemployment to be about where it is now for more than a year. We know it's one of the last pieces of data to turn in any recovery. Unfortunately, it is now overlapping with an unwanted and unexpected spike in inflation. Like a jump scare in the final scene of a horror movie, food prices (with rates and power, and insurance) have conspired to pause Reserve Bank rate cuts and rattled our faith in the recovery. Then there are tariffs and global unrest and all of that. It's not really surprising that it all feels bleak. So it's a bit ironic to be writing an optimistic take on the economy, especially given the rough week stuck at home that I've just had. My view wouldn't have been so upbeat if I hadn't been woken from my sick bed on Friday morning by a text from investment bank HSBC's Australian head of communications. He was asking how far away I was from my scheduled meeting with their global chief economist, Janet Henry and and Australia-New Zealand chief economist Paul Bloxham. Oops ... I was a long way away. But they kindly let me Zoom in later, and I'm very glad I did. As anyone with Australian cousins will know, sometimes it's healthy to be slapped in the face with a slightly condescending, external view of the New Zealand condition. Bloxham told me his forecasts currently make him one of the gloomiest economists on Australian growth. However, he's one of the most positive on New Zealand growth. Last year, New Zealand had the single largest contraction of any economy in the developed world, Bloxham points out. That inevitably comes with a hangover. But if you believe in the fundamentals of the New Zealand economy, which he does, there is no reason to assume the cycle won't turn. 'I suspect why I'm a little bit more upbeat than others is I sit in Sydney and watch it from the outside and go: hey, you've got two big forces at work that are set to continue to lift growth and give you a recovery.' No prizes for guessing those two forces – falling interest rates and booming agricultural commodity prices. The money flowing into the rural economy must eventually flow through to the cities and lift growth, Bloxham says. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen (my words, not his). We've had a big downswing, which means we're due a pretty big upswing to get back to trend, he says. And we've got monetary policy and the terms of trade in place to drive that cyclical upswing. 'All cycles look different. We always ask the same question going through: oh, it's not quite happening as quickly as we thought. 'The question you ask yourself is: is that because it's not working? Is it that interest rates aren't going to have the same effect? That a positive-terms-of-trade shock won't have the same effect? Or are things just a bit different this time around?' Great question. And look, the sun's finally out and I think my head's clearing. Time to go for a walk and ponder it all. Liam Dann is business editor-at-large for the New Zealand Herald. He is a senior writer and columnist, and also presents and produces videos and podcasts. He joined the Herald in 2003.
