There are two consequences -
First there is the law itself.
But, while commending the police investigation, he described the terror legislation as "complex and incoherent", and said it should be reviewed by the Law Commission. He said it was almost impossible to apply to domestic terrorists.
Mr Collins told a media conference he had read hundreds of pages of communications and viewed photographs and video footage.
"Regrettably not all the evidence I have been able to see will be made public," Mr Collins said.
"The key reason I am not prepared to authorise prosecutions under the act is there is insufficient evidence to establish to the very high standard required that a group was preparing a terrorist act," Mr Collins said.
He said his decision was not a criticism of the police who had no doubt "put an end to disturbing activities".
We have his word for it... and that of Auntie Helen...
The other side is that of those arrested. Apart from Iti, all that I know of them is the little that has appeared in the news. All of those will live the rest of their lives with the tags of "arrested on suspicion..." and "terrorist".
Well, I want to make it very clear.
Until found guilty in open Court, all of those arrested HAVE NOT COMMITTED anything that is "terrorism".
If my AMerican friends want a point of comparison, they could perhaps consider the FBI action against the Branch Davidian sect at Waco Tx. No one was killed at Ruatoki. No houses were burned down. But in terms of scale, and the effect on the affected communities and individuals, the comparison stands clear in my mind.
Tuesday 13 December...
Today is a day of shame for this little country. Today the Terrorism Suppression legislation was extended in scope rather than limited.
Parliament today voted 108-13 to strengthen terrorism suppression laws, but Parliament was told the bill had no relevance to last month's police raids and the Solicitor-General's ruling against charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act.
That, given experience over the past year or so from this current government, is very close to a downright lie. As a "truth" it probably is true, in the same way that I might say to the wife that I had stopped at the pub to drop a mate there; that I came home with a skinful three hours later is not included in the explanation.
Exactly the same rationale was used to justify the original law. Exactly the same argument was expressed both inside and outside of Parliament by the same suspects. Exactly the same sentiments were expressed when the first law was used by Police to "suppress" the actions of 17 people who were suspected of plotting to commit acts of terrorism including the assassination of George Bush, Auntie Helen, and the Royal Family.
The Bill that makes the new law has been in the House so the second part is also true. It has been around since long before the Operation Eight hit the light of day.
The Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill was drafted long before the police raids with the main purpose of allowing New Zealand to meet its international obligations in terms of designating terrorist organisations.
But it also creates a new offence of committing an act of terrorism, under penalty of a life sentence, and gives the prime minister responsibility for designating groups and individuals as terrorists.
... and does the prospect of that responsibility being in the hands of any politician scare the proverbial out of me? Youbetcha it does. Whether it is Auntie Helen, the Jonkey, or Rob Muldoon does not matter one jot. This is not a power that any individual in government (as a political body) should have.
It is BAD LAW.
It is unsupportable - on any ground.
NZ does have Terrorists, let me list them -
Auntie Helen Clark
The Jonkey John Key
Old Miser Uncle Mike Cullen
Teacher Bill English
Mad Duck Trevor Mallard
and all of the rest of their respective scurvy crews.