Skip to Content »

Why has Sir Geoffrey got the review of the TSA?

  • November 15th, 2007

The bad drafting of the Terrorism Suppression Act has been referred for Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s wisdom. I thought I might give him a hand. What about something along the following lines?

  •  “[It shall be an offence to act with] an intention— 

       To bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection against, Her Majesty, or the Government of New Zealand, or the administration of justice; or

       To incite the public or any persons or any class of persons to attempt to procure otherwise than by lawful means the alteration of any matter affecting the Constitution, laws, or Government of New Zealand; or

       To incite, procure, or encourage violence, lawlessness, or disorder; or

       To incite, procure, or encourage the commission of any offence that is prejudicial to the public safety or to the maintenance of public order; or

       To excite such hostility or ill will between different classes of persons as may endanger the public safety.”

From what the DomPost published yesterday that would not leave the Police helpless.

Funnily enough there is a wee bit of precedent.

Those words are in the Crimes Act definition of sedition, abolished only two months ago amidst legislative self congratulation. 

Some of the PC twits were smugly satisfied that human nature had changed so much that we would never need it again. I’d warrant that few of the rest bothered to read the existing law, just as few read the TSA.

Did the Police (or the PM if she was briefed in time) wonder whether the surveillance of the Tuhoe terrorists raised doubts about the rush to repeal sedition? Why did the Solicitor-General not warn Parliament that it needed reform, not removal, if he was consulted by the Police throughout the operation. If his office was fully informed they should have alerted the Police to the inadequacies of the TSA before the the arrests.

Parliamentarians responded to Sir Geoffrey’s whistle. He has an awesome power to cause group genuflection. It is not as if nobody warned them, but he had them in the grip of something more powerful – fear of seeming unfashionable.

Now they want him to tell them how to fill the hole he dug for them.

Has anyone in the Opposition thought that Parliament might be better to seek advice from someone with less reason to be embarassed, or at least less likely to hypnotise them all into Labour groupthink?


  • George
  • November 15th, 2007
  • 10:24 pm

Are you kidding? Sir Geoffrey appears to be the epitome of NCEA think. Nobody fails, they just get to screw it up from a different angle.

  • Stuart
  • November 17th, 2007
  • 3:23 pm

I recall Richard Prebble lamenting the damage a meddling Sir Geoffrey has wrought on this country.

Clearly he’s not finished his good work.

  • MikeNZ
  • November 19th, 2007
  • 8:11 am

What about Warren Young?
I’m reliably told that He was the MoJ official working for Phil Goff responsible for the TSA and is now at the Law Commission.
He was involved in the makeup of the TSA.
Now He himself is at the LC with Sir Geoff and will look into his own handywork?
Complications of interest perhaps?

Leave your comments:

* Required fields. Your e-mail address will not be published on this site

You can use the following HTML tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>