NZ Council for Civil Liberties

Secret Ministry of Justice consultation on Terrorism Suppression Act

Published · Updated

The New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties has seen a copy of a Ministry of Justice consultation document on reforms to the Terrorism Suppression Act that are being considered by the government. The changes proposed would give ministers dangerous powers to designate groups as ‘terrorist’ and create offences of publishing information that could be seen as supporting such groups. We have seen from the UK the potential for abuse of dangerous these powers, and the likely misuse of them by the police.

The Council condemns the secrecy of this consultation. The Ministry of Justice is consulting only a few handpicked groups and the Council was not one of them, despite being a voice for civil liberties in Aotearoa New Zealand since the 1950s.

The fact that the government is doing this work behind closed doors is a disgrace. New Zealand has been a member of the Open Government Partnership for more than a decade, and the OIA has set standards for openness for more than 40 years. The Public Service Act requires the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Justice to ‘foster a culture of open government’, not one of secrecy.

The text below the line is reproduced from the Ministry of Justice consultation document. We urge all those concerned by the proposals to give draconian new powers to government ministers to respond to the consultation by 8 August 2025.

Reforming the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002

Introduction

The Government has agreed to progress targeted amendments to the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 (TSA). This is phase two of its counter-terrorism legislative reform.

Proposals will focus on modernising the TSA to:

  • Create or amend offences to capture contemporary behaviours and activities of concern.
  • Improve the process for designating terrorist entities.
  • More effectively address online content from designated entities

Emphasis will be on definitions, offences and penalties, designations, information sharing and plain language.

Background

The TSA was enacted to implement New Zealand’s international commitments in the early 2000s and responded to established, organised, large transnational terrorist entities, such as al Qaeda.

The overall settings in the TSA have not been substantively reviewed since its enactment.

Key issues we are seeking your feedback on:

1) Creating or amending offences to capture contemporary behaviours and activities of concern

Offences in the TSA don’t capture the full range of behaviours or activities of concern that are part of the contemporary threat from terrorism.

We are considering a range of behaviours and acts, including:

  • 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, for example by showing insignia or distributing propaganda or instructional material.
  • Modernising definitions, such as “material support”, to captures new online forms of support.

Questions

  • Do you consider it is appropriate to create an offence capturing:
    • being a member of a Designated Terrorist Entity?
    • public expressions of support for a Designated Entity or Terrorist?
  • Are some expressions of support more serious and harmful than others? How might we think about this distinction?
  • Do you think that online support is different from material support?
  • Do you consider that developing or sharing instructional material is facilitating a terrorist act or showing support for a terrorist act?
  • Are there other behaviours we should be prioritising in our analysis?

2) Improving the process for designating terrorist entities

There are increasing numbers of entities that contribute to the risk of a terrorist act occurring that cannot currently be designated as terrorist entities.

Specific provisions need to be followed to designate entities not on a UN list, but the decision-making process is lengthy and the designation period is short. This impacts timely decision-making and the usefulness of designation as a tool to prevent terrorism.

We are considering:

  • Improving the timeliness of the process, by considering changes to who the decision-maker is.
  • Expanding the threshold to enable more modern types of entities to be designated, such as those that ‘facilitate’ or ‘promote and encourage’ terrorist acts.
  • Extending the renewal period from 3 to 5 years.

Questions

  • What do you consider is the key purpose or priority of terrorist designations?
  • Do you think that it is appropriate to expand the scope for designating a terrorist entity?
  • The designation process requires the Prime Minister to review decisions twice. Do you consider the process balances robustness of decision and the speed of decision-making appropriately?
  • The Attorney-General must be consulted on designation-related decisions to ensure the legal requirements are met. Do you consider this remains appropriate?
  • Terrorism impacts many Ministerial portfolios including the Prime Minister, Attorney-General, Minister of Police and Minister of Foreign Affairs. Who do you consider is an appropriate decision-maker for approvals?
  • Do you consider that five years is an appropriate length for a designation period?

3) Addressing online content from designated terrorist entities

There is a disconnect between the designation framework and regulating harmful online content.

Designated terrorist entities are still able to influence and exploit New Zealanders via online platforms as there are no legal requirements in the TSA that regulate the content that entities produce.

We are considering:

  • Defining content disseminated from a designated entity as terrorist content.
  • Constructing a mechanism for identifying and sanctioning terrorist operated websites.

Questions

  • Do you consider it is appropriate to define content that is actively spread by a designated entity as terrorist content?
  • Do you think it is appropriate to include content that is intended to support a designated entity in this definition?
  • How should rights such as freedom of expression, be thought about in context of disseminating terrorist content?
  • Do you agree that the TSA is the appropriate legislative vehicle to define terrorist content?
  • Or do you consider that other mechanisms, such as the objectionable material regime managed by the Classification Office, are better suited?

Feedback

Please send your feedback to nationalsecurity@justice.govt.nz by Friday 8 August 2025.

If you would like a further discussion with us, please contact us as soon as possible.

We may release written responses after an Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) request. If you do not want us to release information, please state this clearly when you send it to us and explain why. We’ll take your views into account when we respond to OIA requests.