The day of the attacks , a special ministerial statement session was held at the beginning of parliament , in which Deputy Prime Minister Jim Anderton , amongst others , gave their condolences for those killed , with Anderton moving a motion to express New Zealand 's " shock and horror " at the events . What followed was a dramatic shift in pace at the select committee level , with many submitters feeling that they did not have enough time to review and make submissions on the increasing amendments that the committee was making in the wake of the attacks . Proponents of the bill claimed that this urgency was a matter of necessity given the threat posed by terrorism , however opponents claimed that this legislative process eroded the public 's right to proper consultation . For instance in its submission on the bill the Women 's International League for Peace and Freedom ( Aotearoa ) , an organisation with consultative status with the United Nations , claimed to be , " dismayed at the extremely short length of time " and did not , " consider such a time period to be sufficient for ... such a complex , and extreme , piece of legislation . " This was echoed in the submission by the Human Rights Commission , stating that , " There has been limited opportunity for public discussion and preparation of submissions . " Nonetheless , the New Zealand government , following several other governments around the world , broadened its own powers in the bill . Greener-Barcham claims that this was in order , " To be part of a broader anti-terrorist effort " and to , " Strengthen ties with ' like-minded states ' " following the September 11 attacks and President Bush 's call to arms . This shift in mentality was reflected in the bill 's renaming from the Terrorism ( Bombing and Financing ) bill to the Terrorism Suppression bill
September 11 attacks
September 11 attacks
Terrorism Suppression Act 2002