Ministerial Statements — Islamic State Conflict—Government Response

I wish to make a ministerial statement. The Government takes its national security obligations very seriously. As Prime Minister, I have overarching responsibility for national security, and today I gave a speech on the topic. I outlined how our risk and threat profile is changing, the challenges we face, and how the Government is responding. Much of that is due to the rapid rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Over the last 2 years it has seized substantial territory in northern Iraq and Syria. New Zealanders will have seen the brutal and distressing methods ISIL uses, including beheading displays and mass killings. ISIL’s ability to motivate Islamic radicals, as well as its growth ambitions, resources, and methods, make it a brutal threat to stability not only in the Middle East but regionally and locally too. It is estimated ISIL has around 12,000 to 15,000 foreign terrorist fighters, of whom as many as 3,000 hold Western passports from a range of countries.

The rise of such a well-resourced, globally focused terrorist entity, highly skilled in recruitment techniques using social media, is a game-changer for New Zealand. ISIL exposes us to a type of threat that we lack the legislative tools and resources to combat. As in other Western countries, ISIL has been successful in recruiting New Zealanders to the cause. Government agencies have a watch-list of between 30 and 40 people of concern in the foreign fighter context. These are people in or from New Zealand who are in various ways participating in extremist behaviour. Some of those on the watch-list have travelled to Syria to engage in fighting, and remain there. Others are ISIL supporters who have tried to travel to Syria or to Iraq to fight and have been prevented from leaving by cancellation of their passports.

Although I am limited in what I can say, it is important to note there are individuals here in New Zealand who are attracted to carrying out domestic attacks of the type that we have seen prevented in Australia and that took place in Canada. I want to stress that none of these people is a representative of the New Zealand Muslim community, and I know that the vast majority of Muslims here are as distressed by ISIL’s actions and violent message as anybody is. As a Government, we are doing what we can to prevent New Zealanders from going off to fight for ISIL and brutally killing innocent civilians in Iraq and Syria. Should they return to New Zealand fully radicalised and skilled in fighting, they will represent a significant threat to the safety of New Zealanders, so we have been cancelling people’s passports where necessary. But even those radicalised New Zealanders who have been prevented from travelling are a threat to our safety and security. In addition to those on the watch-list, there are another 30 to 40 people on a list of people requiring further investigation. These people could well be added to the watch-list or given the all-clear. We will not know that until those investigations can be properly carried out.

I announced today that Cabinet has agreed to a proposal for law changes in the short term—ones that cannot wait for the broader intelligence review required by law next year. I intend to seek broad political support to pass this very limited legislation, which I trust that other parties will see as narrow and responsible. The first change is to give the Minister of Internal Affairs the ability to cancel a passport on the grounds of national security for to up to 3 years. At the moment the Minister can do that for only up to 1 year. Secondly, I intend to allow the Minister to suspend a passport or travel document for a temporary period of no more than 10 working days. This would be used where urgent action is required but time is not available to prepare a full package of information to support a cancellation. Thirdly, the SIS will be given a $7 million funding injection across the current and next financial years to increase the number of staff it has to monitor and investigate foreign terrorist fighters.

Finally, I want to update one aspect of the SIS surveillance powers. The SIS cannot generally undertake visual surveillance in a private setting, or which would involve trespass on to private property. This means, for example, that the service cannot install a video camera in private premises even if it was to observe activities of a security concern, like people training with weapons. This issue was dealt with on the police’s behalf in the Search and Surveillance Act of 2012. I am proposing that the SIS be given the power under warrant and with additional safeguards modelled on the Search and Surveillance Act. I am also proposing that the SIS be given an emergency surveillance power for a period not exceeding 48 hours to conduct surveillance before a warrant can be issued.

The second aspect of our response to ISIL relates to our contribution to the international coalition fighting this entity. To manage a threat like this we need to be well informed and share information with our partners, which is the role of the intelligence agencies. We will be stepping up our contribution to intelligence operations that offer opportunities to further understand and potentially disrupt ISIL. We will also be building capability to monitor threats from any offshoots of ISIL that threaten us at home.

ISIL is not a short-term threat. Defeating it will mean winning the hearts and minds of those vulnerable to its destructive message. New Zealand, as a good international citizen and as a country now elected to serve on the United Nations Security Council, needs to play its part in ensuring that the longstanding and, some would say, intractable problems of the Middle East are addressed. Over the next 2 years we have the opportunity to attempt to ensure that the council, designed to address these major issues of stability and security, lifts its game.

The situation in Syria and Iraq is an extreme humanitarian emergency with millions displaced by conflict. New Zealand has provided $13.5 million in aid to the region since the start of the Syrian crisis in 2011, and I am pleased to announce a further $1 million contribution today to help refugees and the internally displaced. We will also be looking at further assistance to meet the needs of Syrian and Iraqi refugees.

Moving on to assisting in building a disciplined and efficient military in Iraq, New Zealand cannot, and should not, fight Iraqis’ battles for them. In the speech today I ruled out sending SAS or any troops into combat roles in Iraq. Our military can and may well play a part in building the capability and capacity of the Iraqi forces. Should military personnel be deployed in Iraq they would be behind the wire and limited to training local forces in order to counter ISIL and legitimately protect innocent people. Cabinet has asked for further advice on this training option, which will be filled by regular forces. That advice will take some time to be completed and will involve assessing how safe and secure a training location is and whether our security requirements can be met. We are talking to our longstanding partner Australia about what it is doing to help train the Iraqi forces and how we might help. New Zealand military planners will travel to the Middle East to assess the training option, and then provide further information to Cabinet.

We are also looking at where our military could make a contribution outside Iraq by supporting more longstanding operations where our partners have relocated resources to address ISIL. All of this will be carefully thought through before final decisions are made. As I said in the speech today, New Zealand has long been portrayed as having a benign threat environment. It gives me no pleasure to say that this is changing. New Zealanders can be sure that we are taking careful and responsible steps to protect their safety and security.

First of all, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity for the House to respond to his ministerial statement. It is at times like this that Parliament can be at its best. It is a time when politicians can show New Zealanders that reasoned and constructive debate is possible on issues of national and international importance.

The speech given by the Prime Minister this morning and the statement we have just heard in the House today regarding his Government’s legislative response, aid, and diplomatic efforts to combat the atrocities occurring in Iraq and Syria by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) warrant our serious consideration and full debate. Security at home and protection of New Zealand citizens must always be a top priority for any Government—security on our streets, security in our homes, in our workplaces, in our schools, and so on. New Zealanders expect Governments to take necessary measures to protect them and their families from preventable danger, within the bounds of reason and within our obligations under international and domestic law—human rights law, international refugee law, and international humanitarian law.

New Zealand does have a proud record in upholding fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. We have, as a country, managed to balance the need for security and respect for human rights. At times it can be difficult to have that balance. Hindsight is often used to look at the decisions made after the event. Today, people are expecting Parliament to get the balance right—to arrive at a response to the growing unrest and violence by ISIS in a calm and proportionate way.

The legislation that has been outlined by the Prime Minister today seeks to extend the powers of the SIS to investigate and monitor people who may be a threat to our security. Our role as the Opposition is to question the balance and to be vigilant in terms of the legislation on behalf of New Zealanders. The provisions in the legislation are to be parallel to those currently available to the police under the Search and Surveillance Act, which would enable visual surveillance in private places. The powers of the SIS are also to be extended to authorise surveillance activities to be undertaken in an emergency situation, without warrant, for the duration of no more than 48 hours.

There must be safeguards, Prime Minister, to prevent abuse, and appropriate warrants should be issued as quickly as possible in these very rare circumstances. We would not want to see the 48 hours become the minimum or the standard operating procedure, which we have actually seen from the Government, in terms of Official Information Act requests, waiting until the legal time is up before releasing information. So we are saying: “Do not let the 48 hours become the norm.” If it can be done faster, it ought to be done faster. If the Prime Minister is not available within 48 hours to approve the warrant, then there should be an alternative available.

We will examine the provisions very carefully at the select committee to ensure safeguards are in place to minimise potential abuse of the extended power. We will also require that, when reporting on the number of warrants issued under this provision, the Prime Minister report on how long it took before approval was given. I think that will give us a pretty good idea of how fast warrants like this can be regularised. The legislation also provides powers to disrupt and restrict travel by those seeking to fight alongside designated terrorist groups. The right to free travel by New Zealanders is a precious one, and we are keen international travellers. But clearly there are grounds where restrictions can be justified. A person intent on engaging in terrorist acts or seeking to join with organisations that are committing crimes against humanity are such grounds.

The United Nations Security Council in Resolution 2178 on 24 September this year expressed grave concern about the acute and growing threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters, those who attempt to travel to become foreign terrorist fighters, and the recruitment of foreign terrorist fighters. As a member of the United Nations Security Council and as good international members, New Zealand needs to heed those grave concerns and put in place appropriate measures. However, the cancellation of a passport while a New Zealander is overseas cannot be undertaken lightly. It will be important that any New Zealand citizen, when this happens, is issued with travel documents so that they can return to New Zealand immediately. It would not make sense to render a person stateless and increase their potential to re-engage with a terrorist group.

Labour broadly supports the provisions as outlined today, and we believe that they appear to be justified to ensure safety at home as well as meeting our international obligations. As I said, our role ought to be vigilant, to closely examine the bill at the select committee, and to ensure the measures are workable, are necessary, and are framed appropriately. We are glad that it is going to the select committee to enable New Zealanders to have a say. I thought, at one stage, that there was some doubt that that might happen, but I am pleased that it is going to a select committee, even if the process is truncated. The Australians managed to send their legislation to the Senate and to the Lower House.

After what has felt like decisions made on the drip-feed—a snippet here, a clue there, and a hint dropped over there—we are finally seeing the Government’s contribution to the conflict caused by ISIS. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has announced humanitarian support for refugees from Syria and Iraq, and has ramped up diplomatic efforts to address the rise of ISIS. We support such measures. It is clear to us that New Zealanders support an approach like this rather than front-line troops, or even SAS troops fighting on the front line.

If, Prime Minister, the next step by the Government is to involve New Zealanders in some sort of military involvement, we think it is also clear that the majority of New Zealanders would like such a decision to be backed by the United Nations. We urge the Government to use the mandate it now has, as a member of the Security Council, to speak up on behalf of a mandated approach to those countries, to use the influence that we have over the next 2 years.

Bill English was the leader of the National Party in 2003 when Labour decided not to go into the war in Iraq. At that time he said he wanted openness and honesty. That is what he got then and that is what this Parliament is asking for now. Nobody wants to see the spread of war or the atrocities that have been perpetrated on innocent people, not least the people who live in those countries or the families who are in New Zealand. Christopher Finlayson and I recently met with some of those families who are so fearful for what is happening to their families in those countries. What we can do, in terms of helping refugees fleeing from those countries, is to back and support them.

Can I conclude by saying that I have always liked the quotes of Mahatma Gandhi, and this is one I think is appropriate today. He said: “An eye for an eye makes the world blind.” Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Green Party stands for peace and for freedom. Peace is the best weapon that we have in achieving personal security. It is a simple fact that New Zealanders are safest in a peaceful world. Our democracy is only as strong as our personal freedoms. When personal freedoms are eroded, our democracy is weakened.

Today John Key has eroded our quest for peace both at home and abroad, and has eroded New Zealanders’ personal freedoms. By offering support to the US-led war with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), he leads us into part of a strategy that reduces the prospects of enduring peace in the Middle East, and in the process we are also being told we have to give up freedoms here at home. That is a lose-lose strategy.

We believe that reduced international and national security, the erosion of civil liberties in New Zealand, and the introduction of the politics of fear into our national debate is much too high a price to pay for involvement in the US-led efforts against ISIS. The Green Party stands for an entirely different approach. We believe there is a better alternative. Rather than yet again pursuing the tried and failed approach of military incursion into the Middle East, resulting in increased radicalism and surges in terrorist activity, we should instead lead efforts that result in genuine peace and security.

This is the test that we would apply to our Government’s actions. Does our course of action lead to peace abroad and greater security at home, and does our course of action strengthen or weaken personal liberties? It is our view that the approach set out by John Key today takes us further from peace and weakens our democracy. We stand for peace overseas that delivers freedom at home.

New Zealand has a rightfully proud record of trying to do the right thing in the world. The value of our independent and principled foreign policy was recently highlighted by the trust placed in us by those countries that supported us in the United Nations Security Council bid. When needed and when right, we have not been afraid to roll up our sleeves and work with others to achieve lasting peace in the world. Sometimes this has meant dying alongside other countries. But ever since the war in Viet Nam we have learnt to question our involvement in the wars that our traditional allies have entered into around the globe. We have been better off for this questioning approach. The 10-year war that followed the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 we wisely stayed out of. It was the right thing to do. That war ended inconclusively, at great cost to both the US and Iraq, and played a big part, perversely, in the rise of ISIS.

Supporting war, whether directly with boots on the ground or through other actions, is one of the most important decisions that we as a nation can ever make. It is our view that through our intelligence-gathering activities and support for US-led efforts New Zealand is part of the American war effort. What John Key has set out is New Zealand’s clear support for those fighting the war with ISIS.

Today the Green Party is clear in its position. We do not support any form of military engagement with the war effort. This includes training support for the Iraqi army. Regardless of how the Government seeks to frame it, the reality is that any military assistance is a contribution to the war effort. It is our view that the war effort will not result in peace. It is a strategy without an end point and has a low chance of success. It is a myth that Western intervention can destroy ISIS. A war will not solve what is, at heart, sectarianism in Iraq.

Ten years of war waged by America could not solve the tensions that divide Sunni and Shi’a Iraqis or divide extremists from the moderates, so how will this time be any different? Even an intensive, decades-long American ground effort, something that is politically not on the table, might only make the problem worse. ISIS’s presence in Iraq and Syria is fundamentally a political problem, not a military one. Doug Ollivant, national security adviser for Iraq from 2005 to 2009, told Vox Media: “I take the somewhat modest position that the actions of 6 million Iraqis may be more important than those of 30,000 troops and one very talented general,”.

The world can defeat ISIS and build a lasting peace. We in the Greens are committed to this outcome, but there are better ways to achieve it. There are better ways to achieve it than through military Western intervention.

The Green Party strongly supports a commitment to additional humanitarian aid in the region and a commitment to finding an enduring political solution to the war in the Middle East, especially now that we are in the key position to do so, on the Security Council. By contributing humanitarian aid, New Zealand can demonstrate that our primary concern is for the needs of the victims, particularly children. By contributing our independent foreign diplomacy at the UN, New Zealand can demonstrate our commitment to collective peace and security, the only real long-term solution to the horror of war and terrorism. If New Zealand wants to make a difference on the Security Council, by going in clean we will be more credible advocates for finding a political solution in the Middle East.

Any military deployment in the Middle East will undermine our peace and security here at home. Although this is not a compelling reason on its own to avoid engaging in conflicts around the world where it is just and the outcome will be lasting, this US-led war against ISIS does not justify those costs that we will bear here at home.

Rather than eroding our civil liberties, it is now time to strengthen our tolerant and free democratic society. Rather than shutting down, it is now time to open up. Let us look at what enlightened leaders are doing to reduce the risk posed by foreign fighters, rather than rely on the failed policies of the Abbott Government in Australia. Joining the US-led war in the Middle East is already increasing the climate of fear back here at home. We saw it in the Prime Minister’s speech today and in his recent statements. Fear pervades the drip-feeding of allegations that raise suspicions about our neighbours and others who share our community. Fear is the tried and true playbook of those who seek to build artificial walls between us.

The Green Party rejects becoming a nation of fear. Fear is the breeding ground for intolerance, violence, and the slow, sure erosion of our own hard-fought-for rights, freedoms, and duties to one another.

Today John Key announced the erosion of a few more of our rights as citizens. There will be $7 million of funding for our secret services, increased scope for the State to cancel New Zealanders’ passports, and, most problematically, the expansion of video surveillance by the SIS without the prior need for a warrant. The continual encroachment of the surveillance State here in our home is part and parcel of the commitment to the war on terror abroad. War abroad and spying here at home are two sides of the same coin. Our police already have extensive and sufficient powers to pre-empt an investigation into crime that is being planned here in Aotearoa New Zealand. We have no clear evidence for more. We will not stand by and watch New Zealand become another paranoid society—one where our secret services have even greater powers to spy on us, one where our freedoms are progressively withdrawn, and one where spending on security becomes a higher priority than the crisis of New Zealand’s child poverty.

Today I speak on behalf of a truly independent foreign policy that works for peace as the best form of security—a foreign policy that aligns foreign and domestic interests. I speak on behalf of our personal freedoms. I put them on a pedestal, to be eroded only in the most extreme of cases. I speak on behalf of those New Zealanders who believe in alternatives to war and fear and those who aspire to genuine peace and freedom. Thank you.

New Zealand First welcomes the chance to debate the Prime Minister’s statement today on the Government’s response to the threat of the Islamic State movement and the proposed new legislative powers to counter the threat of international terrorism. We share the view that the threat posed by the Islamic State is indeed very serious and there are no grounds for complacency.

Welcome as it is, we do consider the Prime Minister’s statement to be seriously overdue and lacking chronological detail. There has been enough delay. There has been far too much prevarication. New Zealanders have seen events unfolding internationally and have had only a vague and indefinite comment from time to time from the Prime Minister. In the area of national security, the public must take so much on trust alone. That is because, understandably, nearly all the work has to be done behind closed doors, but a Government has a duty to keep the public as informed as it can be on what commitments and undertakings are being given in the area of international security. Ultimately, it is the public who will pay the price of those commitments.

In our view, up until now the Prime Minister has been less than forthright. We do note that the briefings given to journalists such as David Fisher in today’s New Zealand Herald on page A15 are far more substantial than the briefings that were given to us. Why that would be the case and we should be expected to go along with the Government is beyond us, but there it is. That briefing is more comprehensive, I believe, than that given to other parliamentary parties.

The result has been that the public’s confidence that the Prime Minister will act with the highest integrity in relation to security issues has been eroded. But today the Prime Minister has finally set out his Government’s response in terms of changes to strengthen anti-terrorism legislation and how New Zealand can contribute to the wider international effort to combat the Islamic State.

At this juncture it is important that New Zealanders know where New Zealand First stands on these important issues. The changing context is important. New Zealand enjoys a great geographical advantage in our distance from the world’s troubled regions. To an extent, that the distance is, in an era of global terror threats, an illusion. But what is evident is that we are part of the global community. Events in the Middle East matter to New Zealand. The Islamic State movement is a deeply disturbing development that has unleashed a form of barbarism that no responsible country can ignore.

On the issue of New Zealand’s national security matters, New Zealand First stands with some basic principles. First, our national security is ultimately our most important national interest. The first duty of any Government is to ensure the safety and protection of its citizens. New Zealand First has always taken the view that this is the primary responsibility of the Government but, equally, that Opposition parties must also display responsibility. Second, New Zealand has a great stake in a stable international order. We are a small and essentially defenceless nation. The last thing we want is international disorder and chaos. Third, New Zealand’s capacity to contribute to international efforts against terrorism is small. We must make careful and considered decisions. There is nothing to be gained from pretending otherwise.

But this is a time when we can reflect on what Edmund Burke, the great British political thinker, observed: “Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.” Accordingly, we do support some of the measures the Prime Minister has mentioned today as ways New Zealand can contribute to the international effort against the Islamic State, such as intelligence cooperation and diplomatic and humanitarian support. On the issue of audio-surveillance, if the laws are transposed from audio surveillance to visual surveillance, then they cannot really be an expansion—it is just an inclusion of better technology.

But the Prime Minister must be clear and unequivocal on the issue of committing New Zealand to a combat role. Any New Zealand military forces sent to the Middle East will be construed by the Islamic State as in effect combat-related. Yesterday the Prime Minister denied Cabinet had made a decision. That denial was patently false. The people who briefed us had already told us that Cabinet had made a decision, so why the Prime Minister rose in the House yesterday and denied it is beyond me. Second, as those denials were being sounded there were military planners who had already left New Zealand to act on behalf of this country, suggesting that a Cabinet decision had already been made.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Already there.

Well, if they are already there, why was there the denial in the House yesterday on such a serious matter? Cooperation with Australia is also going to be construed by the Middle East in the same way as we would construe it if we were being neutral.

We cannot slip into combat by stealth. We cannot support policy when we are not being told the full truth, open and honestly, on the related issue of strengthening some legislation in the areas of passport controls and, as I said, visual surveillance and providing extra funding for the SIS. We will need to see the full details before reaching a final position. But in our view it is right that the Government should seek as wide a degree of cross-party support as possible for national security issues and matters. That means taking other parties into its confidence and not giving preference to journalists in terms of information, as is so clearly demonstrated in evidence on page A15 of the New Zealand Herald today.

We will consider the proposed legislative package carefully and responsibly. Our evaluation will be informed by the principle that on questions of national security New Zealand First takes a realistic stance. We live in the real world, and in this regard we are highly critical of the Government’s open-door immigration policy. If people over there are so concerned about this matter, then why has there been such a loose immigration policy for so long? Who is here who should not be here? What checks have been made? We are not satisfied that the level of scrutiny and checking that immigrants are given is adequate, given the nature of modern terrorism. We cannot put our heads in the sand in a world of extremists and terrorists such as the Islamic State that stand opposed to everything we value as a democratic and free society.

To ignore the threat posed by the Islamic State would be irresponsible, and recent events graphically illustrate that terrorism can now be home grown and it also does not respect international borders. Yet New Zealanders enjoy civil liberties that must not be abandoned lightly or casually in a rush to be seen to be doing something.

Coming back to the point, if we are going to carry on with our open-door immigration policy with so little scrutiny, then there cannot be people over there who are seriously being genuine in their concerns. For this reason New Zealand First will assist the Government to meet legitimate national security goals as long as we are satisfied that the extra legislation, as outlined by the Prime Minister today, is fully needed and justified. On national security or on any other issue New Zealand First will not be rubber-stamping legislation.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. I stand to follow on from other speakers in respect of the opportunity given by the Prime Minister to make a statement today.

Today’s announcement about the possibility of New Zealand entering into a war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is set against, in some senses, some uncanny circumstances. Today Māoridom, at least, and those of Taranaki think about the cost and the casualties of Parihaka, and also, of course, tonight is an acknowledgment of the works of Mr Guy Fawkes, a ritual that has no cultural relevance to Aotearoa.

It was 133 years ago, early in the morning of 5 November 1881, that a small New Zealand settlement was the scene of one of the worst infringements of civil and human rights ever committed and witnessed in this country. A gentle rural community was invaded by 150 militia and armed members of the constabulary. As innocent children welcomed the army within their midst, over 2,000 locals watched on in silence. This was not an invasion by foreign troops on our own soil. Amongst the military forces in attack were politicians, driven by their hunger for the rich, fertile, prime lands of Taranaki. The forces were led, in fact, by two members of Parliament, both Cabinet Ministers.

In respect of Mr Guy Fawkes, it is my suggestion that today, although there might be sparklers and rockets throughout the country tonight, most New Zealanders will not be aware of the history that comes from that event—namely, a plot to blow up Westminster Palace and to take the life of the then monarch, King James I.

I pay particular reference to Parihaka on this historical day because it provides a glimpse into war in our own nation. It gives some sense of harm caused to generations of families through the military action. The people of Parihaka commonly refer to that as Te Pāhuatanga o Parihaka, the invasion of Parihaka. It is still even today spoken about.

The Māori Party is strongly opposed to New Zealand taking up military involvement in Iraq in a civil war not of our making. During the 2003 to 2013 deployment in Afghanistan, Aotearoa lost 10 New Zealand soldiers. As a nation we suffered the loss of lives through military presence in Afghanistan, at a great and enduring cost to the well-being of families and communities living here.

There is another reason why I wanted to refer to Parihaka. Parihaka was also the birthplace, of course, of the unique movement of passive resistance associated with the visionary leadership of Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kākahi. Both men were committed to non-violent action, drawing on ancestral wisdom to offer both spiritual and political leadership while war broke out all around them.

There are other options that we could explore. We welcome the emphasis that the Prime Minister gave in his statement today towards humanitarian aid. The expression of manaakitanga in a global context is demonstrated by the commitment to increased support for refugees from Syria and Iraq who have fled their homes in terror as the result of the ongoing violence. This is a responsibility for peacemaking at an international level, which we absolutely support. It is a responsibility that is consistent with other members who have held my office, such as Sir Apirana Ngata, who soon after war was announced in 1939 put into words the sacrifice our whānau were prepared to make. He said: “We are participants in a great Commonwealth, to the defence of which we cannot hesitate to contribute our blood and our lives. … We are of one house, and if our Pakeha brothers fall, we fall with them. How can we ever hold up our heads, when the struggle is over, to the question: ‘Where were you when New Zealand was at war?’ ”.

Our participation in serving the nation in such a way came as a result of our commitment to honouring the obligations and duties, which we believe came out of the covenant we signed in the Treaty of Waitangi, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We commend that generosity of spirit, that incredible sacrifice of life and limb, that has caused enduring harm to the spirit of the generations who follow.

I want to take us back to the last decade of deployment to Afghanistan. Those 10 fallen soldiers, killed in attacks in the Bamian Province, or Kabul, were aged between 21 and 41. Seven were in their 20s—young New Zealanders starting off in life, their lives brutally cut short. We cannot forget their sacrifice, and indeed the sacrifices of the Second World War, of the Korean War, of the Malayan emergency, and so on. The New Zealand Army, Ngāti Tūmatauenga, has served with distinction in the major conflicts in the 20th century; it has given so much to fight for, for the honour of our country overseas. But when do we get around to having the national discussion around military contribution?

Although the statement today—thankfully—rules out sending the SAS, or any other troops, into the combat roles in Iraq, it does state that the military can, and may well, help with building the capacity and capability of Iraqi forces. It also indicates a willingness to help train the Iraqi forces, to deploy military planners to the Middle East to determine whether New Zealand can play a role in helping Iraqi defence forces. We understand the importance of diplomatic and intelligence measures in order to engage, but the Māori Party asks: “What makes the training work any different to being in the front line, firing the guns?”. Although there is a clear statement that there will be no combat role in Iraq, we are not convinced that helping to train the Iraqi forces is sufficiently removed from the combat zones.

Throughout the wars of the 1860s the Parihaka leaders forbade the use of arms and condemned violence and greed, and in doing so they modelled the art of passive resistance as a template for healing a nation, for responding to conflict through peacemaking and dialogue. We have a proud history of protecting communities through different means, through peace building. This is an opportunity, we say, surely to ensure that our distinctive legacy of peaceful action might be useful.

There is one other area that I want to touch on and that is the increased authority and intervention by the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service to carry out video surveillance on private properties for the purpose of observing activities. The Māori Party will stand on record as stating our absolute opposition to any such actions that would see a repeat of Operation Eight, in which the innocent lives of the whole communities of Ruātoki were trampled on, traumatised, and for ever changed as a result of the heavy hand of the State.

We stand alongside the Tūhoe nation, who have only just received the formal acknowledgment by the Crown in the last few months, or at least by the police as well, of those injuries that occurred on 15 October 2007. This incident was disproportionate surveillance under the guise of national security. What the Independent Police Conduct Authority has concluded is that the police failed to meet expected standards when carrying out the Ruātoki and Tāneatua road blocks and five of the 41 property searches. Tūhoe, Ruātoki, Tāneatua—let us not forget that we have raised these concerns at the highest levels and we expect this action to never occur again.

We do support the need for citizens in their areas to have the ability to look after themselves, to be self-determining, and to be able to care for themselves against the atrocities of war, but we will never ever support any contribution of a military nature that seeks to strengthen the potency of Iraqi forces to fight others. Our focus will always be on being a good international citizen, promoting models of peace, and supporting the well-being of families to care for themselves, but we can do that in a peacemaking and humanitarian mode, not in the context of civil war. We have a great international reputation of providing humanitarian support. Let us stay where we are strong. Nō reira, kia ora tātou katoa.

I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate this afternoon in response to the Prime Minister’s statement on the Government’s response to the Islamic State conflict. I think it is a good step for this House to be following. But I think the next step is for such statements in future to be made directly to Parliament and not to an interested audience of notables and worthies outside Parliament in advance of this important occasion.

From the time of the Balfour Declaration in 1917 through to the most recent American intervention in Iraq, the history of Western intervention in the Middle East has not always led to peaceable outcomes. We have certainly seen more confusion, more upheaval, and more bitterness created by some of those interventions over the years, and that is why I think the Government has taken a prudent course in ruling out any form of military involvement by New Zealand in the campaign against Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). I think that that is not just recognition of our particular strength, or lack thereof, but it is also correct in terms of the course of history, and I must say in passing that the sending of military advisers to Iraq is, in my view, at the outer limit of acceptability.

But the issue really now comes down to a humanitarian one. No one, anywhere, can tolerate the barbarity, the brutality, the exhibitionism, and the crudity of the ISIS terrorists. What we have seen in the media and social media is unacceptable by any norm, but we need to be very careful that we do not transfer our abhorrence of this behaviour into a lack of understanding, or a preparedness to even consider, the political views that lie behind that most brutal expression. That is why it is appropriate for countries like New Zealand to work through humanitarian assistance to the affected parties and, as the Prime Minister’s speech earlier today made reference, to assist with the construction of sound institutions of State and forms of governance to promote democratic ideals—to promote the sorts of values that we might regard as important in a free society—rather than a brutal suppression of those ideas because we abhor the methods that the proponents use. Just as we might later today celebrate—although some of us might commiserate with—the demise of Guy Fawkes 500 years ago because of the methods that he used, we cannot get into the same risk with regard to our treatment of the ISIS terrorists.

There are a number of measures contained in the Prime Minister’s announcement that I want to comment on specifically. If I can put on my hat as the Minister of Internal Affairs for just a moment, I think that the changes proposed to the passports legislation are appropriate. The current legislation has been shown to have some deficiencies, particularly in terms of the duration of a suspension, but also in the definition used, which at the moment is specific to the interests of New Zealand. The question that then arises is how those interests might be interpreted. Are they New Zealand’s domestic interests or wider interests, or a combination of both? So I think that the changes proposed in that respect are positive, and there are safeguards contained within those proposals that mean that we will not get a ridiculous or rampant use of those provisions.

I think the same can be said for the changes regarding surveillance by the SIS, although I have some misgivings about aspects of that, but, broadly speaking, they line up with the provisions that the police already have. They will be subject to a warrant, and that warrant, under the legislation changes last year, is much more accountable publicly than was the case previously. In an ideal world these changes would have awaited the outcome of the review of the SIS and the Government Communications Security Bureau due to occur after 30 June next year, but I accept that that may not be a practical step, even though it might be a preferable one, and I think that the idea of therefore having some sunset clauses about those particular provisions is a good one. But I echo a comment that was made by an earlier speaker. I want to ensure that the sunset clause is exercised not at the last minute, but as soon as the changes that arise from the review next year are put in place.

I must say that I do have some concerns about the additional funding of $7 million being advanced to the SIS. I think that that is a matter that requires more scrutiny in terms of the direction of that expenditure—the purposes to which it is being put—and I am sure that that is something the Intelligence and Security Committee will turn its mind to in due course. Beyond that, there was a comment in the Prime Minister’s statement regarding greater international intelligence cooperation. I have some very real misgivings about that because I have lingering concerns about the capacity of our Government Communications Security Bureau to contribute effectively to that process. It seems to me that what we are reliant on in a lot of cases is external intelligence coming into New Zealand to assist us in the decisions we might make. In that context I therefore worry about what we might be doing in terms of greater cooperation. I would hate to think we are in a position where the particular circumstances we are properly concerned about with regard to the rise of ISIS are being used as a cover or an excuse for a more broadening extension of intelligence powers and practices than might otherwise have been the case. I have not heard that suggested, and I hope it is not, in fact, the reality.

I think that for many people, what they have seen in recent weeks has really jolted their attention in terms of the march of international terrorism, and it has given us a new sense of how small and vulnerable our world is. The romantic notions that perhaps our grandparents might have told us about, the troops that marched off to be part of the international battalion during the Spanish Civil War and the fight against Franco and fascism, do not apply today. Communication is more instant. Communication is more sinister. Planning is more devious. It is not some romantic march for freedom, as those fighters in the international battalion might have been on in the 1930s. So it is appropriate for States to do things to protect themselves and their citizenry from the threat of such attacks. The numbers for New Zealand may well be small, but those people have contacts. Those people are a relatively fluid group, and we know they do not simply sit around and talk just to each other; they talk to a range of other people.

I think that that is where we as citizens have a right to be both concerned and then assured that the appropriate steps are being taken to protect our safety as individuals and also our safety as a nation. We have seen examples in other countries of quite random and quite significant—in the sense of particular—attacks on individuals. It is not so much a case of the grand attack any more, it seems to me, but a much more immediate, random attack that cuts at the very core of the confidence of a society. Be it plans for moves in Australia that have been thwarted or be it the assassination of innocent citizens in Canada or in the United Kingdom, the risk is none the less the same. So the issue for New Zealand is what we can do to protect our citizens in that respect. The safeguard we have is that the measures that have been announced are, in my view, prudent and will also be examined by a select committee before they are passed by this House.

I want to say this to the Prime Minister. I think it was a good step to make the statement in the way he did this morning. I think that if there are to be future iterations of this process, they should be made in the same way to this Parliament, where they can be debated and a consensus secured for the measures that we might be about to take, because the best way of securing our freedom for the future is to ensure that we have all bought into the concept of what it is we are trying to secure, right from the outset. Frankly, a divided House or a divided country in these sorts of situations leaves us nowhere. So I think that today is a useful start. There is a lot of ground yet to cover, and I look forward to further discussions and debate as the tides continue to flow.

I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the proposals announced this morning. My party believes that the first and most important role of the State is to protect citizens against thugs. This duty applies whether the thugs reside overseas or within our borders. Given this extraordinary power, however, the State does have a tendency to overreach. Over the past century, much of classical liberals’ attention has been rightly focused on resisting the overreach of the State. That was right, I say, because those Governments did suppress freedom of movement and freedom of contract. Many of my remarks are directed at civil libertarians, of whom I count myself as one, unlike some of the more ostentatious appeals to that constituency made earlier.

Actually, I want to congratulate the Prime Minister and the acting deputy leader of the Labour Party on very fine speeches. I began to appreciate some of the opponents of MMP until I saw that Peter Dunne made a very fine speech too.

We support the intention to ensure that proper parliamentary processes are followed, even while we are, for very good reason, speeding them up a little. We support the moves to tidy up inconsistencies between the powers of the police and the SIS, inconsistencies that unduly hamper justified monitoring of internal threats. The other moves—the funding boost to the SIS, the changes in respect of passports, the narrow changes to emergency surveillance, and the sunset clauses—all appear to be measured and restrained in scope.

But the issues being considered today go well beyond those internal matters, and they do so because it is not always the State that is a threat to liberty, or even other States that are the threat. The contest in the Middle East and the threats of global terrorism in recent decades have come from stateless entities—or, at least, currently stateless entities, as their ambition is to create their own State. We need hardly debate whether there is a contest of values at stake in respect of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). That entity represents the antithesis of civilised values—the values of liberty, the rule of law, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and democratic institutions.

But the question is whether we should get involved at all. As a country we have throughout our history played our part in defending not just borders but also the values of free and democratic societies and of modern civilisation. It is true that the military contest in the Middle East is not our fight in so far as they are not our borders, but the contest about the kind of society that will prevail in that region is of profound interest and concern to free societies everywhere. Here the issue is very much a contest of values, the spread of those values around the world, and the threat those values are to free and open societies.

We do not need to document or list the brutalities of ISIL. We have seen them on the news most nights. ISIL does pose a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria and the broader Middle East. Its current operational threats are in the Middle East and North Africa, but its declared threats are global, and specifically directed at Western liberal democracies. They are not just theoretical threats. As we have seen in Australia and Canada recently, ISIL’s adherents and supporters are capable of random acts of violence. The scale may so far be small but their aspirations are not.

One option might be to sit back and wait to see what else ISIL is capable of. We could wait until its capability either wanes or others more directly affected work to ensure ISIL is defeated, or wait until it succeeds in a violent provocation of sufficient scale that a military response becomes the only option. It is not at all clear whether for free societies generally a purely defensive posture is possible, at least not if we wish to maintain a free and open society in our world. A purely defensive posture would be a garrison State, the wagons circled, a wall put up, with extensive and intrusive surveillance within. That is not the free and open society so painfully built and fought for through the past century and before. And that is, simply, the case for playing our part and contributing.

We would all much rather that none of this was necessary. New Zealand is a small country well away from the immediate theatre of struggle in the Middle East. In a direct sense, this is not our fight. They are not our borders at threat. But the values at stake are our values. Although the aspirations of ISIL do not reach our shores, they affect our way of life. So the case for playing our part, however small that might be, is a strong one. Is helping those directly at threat from ISIL a worthy goal, the morally right thing to do? Yes, it is unambiguously so. Is stopping ISIL achievable? With a broad international contribution, the answer must surely be yes, because it has to be. To allow a stateless gang, one utterly pitted against our freedoms and way of life, to dominate a large swath of territory in the Middle East as a launching pad for broader aspirations is unthinkable. In that sense, the situation in Iraq and Syria has direct relevance for our domestic security, our values, and our economy as a small trading nation dependent on international trade and the rule of law internationally.

For New Zealand to make a small contribution to international efforts to prevent the humanitarian crisis from deepening and to support the capabilities of those directly in the firing line seems a justifiable and proportionate response entirely in keeping with our traditional values. We must, of course, be aware of unintended consequences—of mission creep, as they say. From what the Prime Minister has said, no more is being contemplated than humanitarian aid and capacity building for crucial Iraqi institutions, including the army. The ACT Party can support these limited and proportionate measures. They signal a willingness by New Zealand to play our part. The question that matters is whether this is a struggle that is warranted. From what we know so far, it is, thus we support the limited moves announced today and the intention to seek broad political support for them and to pursue due process in implementing them. Thank you.

This debate this afternoon is somewhat unusual in so much as it is usually the case, in a ministerial statement, that only the leaders of parties of more than six members are able to make a contribution. The Business Committee made a decision yesterday that it should be a broad debate because of its nature. That was a decision made unanimously by all members of the Business Committee. I do want to make that statement so that those who might be observing the debate realise that all of Parliament recognises the gravity of the announcement made by the Prime Minister today.

We are having this debate because the Government is responding to a threat from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. I think what is missing a little bit in some of the commentary this afternoon is that this is an organisation that respects no boundaries. This is an organisation that has declared a caliphate and that has a big reach into countries throughout the world, calling on disaffected people who would want to somehow support it to engage in terrorist activities. The numbers that were given by the Prime Minister in his speech today—somewhat unusually, I might add—indicate that its reach has reached our shores as well as the shores of many other countries. So for us to turn a blind eye and say that we are a country that respects freedom and we are a peace-loving country that respects people’s abilities to do whatever they like would be to put at risk the lives of New Zealanders, without recognising that those whom we seek to protect—in the case of the contributions made by one party here today—would be the very people who would seek to destroy the freedoms that we have.

I just have to make a comment about the headline that is currently running on the Fairfax website. It says that we are at war. I think that is an extremely irresponsible headline to have run. I think that the four journalists who have attached their names to it need to reconsider the offering that they are putting in front of the public, in light of the full speech that they listened to, given by the Prime Minister. This is not a war in a conventional sense at all. This is about New Zealand taking some steps to protect New Zealanders here in our own country. When it comes to the objections that people might want to raise about military personnel looking at what we might do in regard to capacity-building in Iraq, let us be clear that legitimate Governments in all countries around the world contribute to our general security. New Zealanders travel a lot. New Zealanders are in many countries throughout the world, and in all of those places, if this organisation is allowed to run rampant, then their security is compromised.

There have been suggestions today that some of the information that has come out has been in the form of a hint. I think Annette King said it was a drip-feed with a small amount of humanitarian aid, and the Rt Hon Winston Peters suggested that it was lacking detail, yet at the same time called for caution. That was also the theme from Annette King. In a way they are both right, because this has been an evolving situation. If you went back 12 months, this is an organisation that no one had really heard of. Yet in that short period of time, the reign of terror that it has inflicted upon the world is such that has never been seen before.

I wonder how anyone can promote the idea that there can be an organisation in the world that respects no boundaries, that encourages domestic terrorism at large, that videos and promulgates its activities—killing and beheading innocent people, etc.—and that can somehow not be considered a threat to us here in New Zealand.

I do though want to thank the Labour Party, the New Zealand First Party, the Māori Party, the ACT Party, and United Future for saying that they will support those extra moves for us to deal with the intelligence community throughout the world. My colleague will speak further on that. We will also engage in diplomacy, whenever possible, to try to make a difference. But in the end it is going to be the countries that are most affected by this, and, initially, Iraq, that need to stand up and do the business of putting this group of people—I hesitate to use the terms “ISIL” or even “Islamic State”, because it implies that all those who are followers of Islam are somehow marked by this. That is not something I believe or that anyone in this Parliament, I am sure, would believe.

This terrorist organisation does need to be stopped, and a first port of call, it would seem, would be for Iraq itself to be able to have the strength to overcome the oppression of these people. We do have some people in the Middle East who are looking at what we might be able to do to assist with that. I reject the statement by Winston Peters that a decision has been made. It has not, but without good information, without on-the-ground intelligence, and without a decent assessment of what is possible, we could not make a decision. It would be, I think, remiss of us to simply rely on information that we got from others. Yes, we have some people who are going to make some inquiries on our behalf, and I think that that is totally appropriate.

I just make the point that we do have to be a great deal more vigilant, given what we now all know from the Prime Minister’s speech this morning. We will have to make some law changes, but we do have to be incredibly careful that the caution we now start to take in expanding that vigilance does not start to impinge upon the freedoms of law-abiding New Zealanders. I think, conversely, law-abiding New Zealanders would expect us to keep their lives free and safe from this sort of threat.

I join with others in thanking the Government for opening up this opportunity to discuss this very important issue. We do face an uncertain world, and the brutality and the atrocities of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is part of that, but obviously not the only issue. There are threats to New Zealand and we have to acknowledge that. We have said, as Annette King said before, that we will adopt a bipartisan approach to strengthening, where necessary, New Zealand SIS. We appreciate, again, the opportunity to be briefed on that. But we will also reserve our final comment until we actually see that legislation before us. Where there are gaps, obviously we will need to plug them, but we also need to be vigilant because this is ultimately about the balancing of our security with our human rights. Select committee consideration, as we have insisted upon, is a critical issue. The option of urgency is not acceptable. I was also pleased to see the sunset clause, which means that this legislation will ultimately fade out as the review of the legislation goes ahead.

I want to make the point that we have to be very, very careful here that we do not overstate the issue of the threat that is before us. We have just heard Gerry Brownlee talk about this as being the worst terrorist organisation in history. John Key said last week that ISIS will “rain carnage on the world”. Make no mistake, it is a nasty, brutish organisation that violates human rights in an awful way. But is ISIS about to bring mayhem and terror into our neighbourhoods? The answer is no. It is brutal. It does commit atrocities and it uses those as a weapon to dominate two countries—Syria and Iraq—and it is sophisticated in the way that it uses local people to take up arms.

We need to be very careful—very careful—about what we do to our local Muslim population, which is a productive and peace-loving part of our community. We are in some ways radicalising those people—in ways that we do not know how they could be radicalised—by the actions we take. I am mindful of a study by the Royal United Services Institute in the UK, which was looking at the UK’s role in the Iraq war. It said that that role increased the radicalisation of young Muslims. It said that far from reducing international terrorism, the 2003 invasion had the effect of promoting it. If the cause is right, then we accept whatever risk we take, but we should understand that whatever we get into will affect the security of us back here in New Zealand.

The Prime Minister also argues that this is an international, a regional, and a local problem. I do not agree. This is a conflict that should be contained locally and regionally, but it is actually we who are internationalising it by our presence in that local and regional area. If we contrast the Islamic State with al-Qaeda, for example, al-Qaeda actually started the other way. It internationalised a Muslim or an Islamic issue, rather than doing it locally. Arguably, in 2001 it posed a much greater risk than the Islamic State does today. The Islamic State is not threatening the world. Again, I am mindful, looking back in history to 2002, of when Tony Blair and his Cabinet said that Iraq posed an imminent threat to Britain. That is fairly laughable today, but it was the rhetoric at the time that was used to justify the Iraq war. We should take real care that we do not exaggerate the threat of ISIS to justify the action that we are taking in New Zealand.

Let us look at the broader contribution to Iraq. On the issue of Iraq, this Government appears to be driven by the desire to do something alongside our “Five Eyes” partners. The rhetoric was somewhat dialled back immediately after the election, when John Key was talking about deploying the SAS. So New Zealand’s possible military contribution, as announced, is a sort of balance between doing something to be there and, on the other hand, not upsetting the New Zealand public. The Prime Minister has probably looked at some of the polling data that has been coming through. If he has, he would realise that New Zealanders actually see sending our young people off to war when there is little understanding of what they are there to do or what they are there to achieve as folly. They might be right to ask those questions and have those doubts about what the reasons would be. If you look at what military analysts are saying about the current tactic of airstrikes, they are saying that those will not work without boots on the ground.

We should remember, actually, that the forerunner of ISIS was what we called al-Qaeda in Iraq. Al-Qaeda in Iraq was actually defeated by the surge, it was called, of tens of thousands of American soldiers alongside the arming of local Iraqi tribesmen—the same sort of tribesmen who fought valiantly but were defeated and then brutally murdered just this week by ISIS when they were trying to stand up for their freedoms but were not given the weaponry and the support that they needed. That points to the problems within Iraq rather than the problems of outsiders trying to do the job.

If we are going to go into Iraq, then we need to make a contribution, and a sensible one. We appear today to be emphasising a more military solution. There was talk about sending nine people into Iraq. We already know that three have gone, so we have made this decision despite the fact that we have made no decisions! We have made this decision already in terms of who we are sending off to Baghdad. I can be pretty emphatic that those people coming back will not be saying there is nothing for us to do there. They will be coming back with a job for the military. We have to balance that off with the risk that we face by becoming involved in even the most benign form of contribution militarily—that we then slide further into additional deployments, that we up the risk of our own insecurity. Most of all, we have to be looking at what we will achieve. I do not believe that the contribution of some military trainers, frankly, will achieve very much. Let us remember that the US spent 10 years in Iraq and spent billions of dollars training an entire Iraqi army only to have it collapse in the first assault that it faced. This is not something, I believe, that we are going to contribute meaningfully in and around. The army itself was not the problem; it was the way Prime Minister al-Maliki at the time favoured his Shi’a group, and, in a sense, undermined the very confidence that the Sunnis had in the work of the Shia. That was commented on today by the Prime Minister in passing.

In terms of the diplomatic role that we can play, I believe we can play a much more positive role in strengthening the Government, the judiciary, and the political framework that is operating in Iraq. We should seek a United Nations Security Council resolution for a mandate to have forces on the ground, and we should be able to up our humanitarian contribution from the $1 million announcement today. We should be focusing on those areas of ISIS where there is vulnerability. It is paying thousands and thousands of military and administrators at the moment. It needs money. It needs oil revenues. We should be shutting off those possibilities of that revenue—oil coming out and armed shipments going in. We should be looking at the difference we can make to Iraq.

New Zealand has never hesitated to go into conflicts where we believed the cause was right or where we were standing up for human rights or humanitarian law—Afghanistan and Timor-Leste being the two most recent. But we have to question the contribution that we make and whether it might be effective. There are consequences that might flow from our actions that we cannot see or perceive today. We need to be operating under a clear mandate. Our position on the United Nations Security Council and the confidence that the world has shown in us in voting us on give us ample opportunity to be able to do that.

About 2 weeks ago from today I received a message at about 5 o’clock in the morning to tell me about the attack by a gunman in the House of Parliament in Canada. A short time later, I rang our High Commissioner Simon Tucker, who was in the New Zealand High Commission about two blocks from the Canadian Parliament, which was part of the lockdown that was in place at that time. When I asked him about the scene there, he said to me: “Well, just imagine this was happening in the New Zealand Parliament, because the layout is about the same.” He said it was like someone had taken out a guard at the Supreme Court—just down that way—hijacked a car to the front steps of Parliament, and, with a gun, burst in the front door. He said that was pretty much the scene that was taking place in Canada that day. The air of disbelief that was present in Canada on that day was about the same as the air of disbelief you would expect if it had happened in this country.

Members do not need me to tell them that the threat that we are here to discuss today is a new and very dangerous one for countries like ours. Nor should I need to remind members that the individual responsible for that act in Canada was a person who had been newly radicalised and who had been denied the opportunity to commit jihad in the Middle East and had instead turned his mind to steps of violence that could be undertaken where he was.

The advent of a well-resourced, globally focused, internet-savvy terrorist group, skilled at preying on the vulnerabilities of the disturbed and disenfranchised, is a new and very dangerous phenomenon for countries like ours. As we have heard today, we now live in a country where there are individuals who have access to these websites—no doubt many of them are disturbed and disenfranchised—who have become radicalised, and have planned to go to the Middle East and commit acts of violence there. Some have gone, as the Prime Minister has told us today, to Syria. We know that there are others who have been denied the opportunity to go to the Middle East and who remain here. No doubt some of them, like that person in Canada, are reflecting on acts of violence that can be undertaken here instead of those they had intended to undertake in the Middle East.

I want to support the words of the Hon Annette King in relation to the UN Security Council resolution on foreign fighters. In fact, I attended the beginning of that debate in New York, and I believe that we should listen carefully to what was said there and heed the instructions from the Security Council. It is important that New Zealand plays its part by identifying the individuals who might export violence from here to places where there is already rather too much of it, preventing them from going, and then turning our minds to how we can make New Zealanders safe in a situation where those people will then turn their minds to acts of violence in this country. The reminder we have seen in Canada is one that we should heed in this country. I accept what Mr David Shearer said to the Parliament. We should not over-egg the situation. We do not need to try to read more into it than exists. But we do need to understand that there is a challenge here for our society to deal with. We need to be careful that we confront it in a way that does not make it worse, by making those who are targeted, who are identified, feel more marginalised and therefore more a prospect of being radicalised.

I want to commend the balanced way in which most parties have received the address from the Prime Minister today and the way in which other parties have undertaken to consider constructively the recommendations that have been made. There are always challenges when trying to find the right balance between the responsibility to respect human rights and civil liberties on the one hand, and the need to protect the public on the other. Finding that balance can only benefit from the scrutiny of members of Parliament in the select committee and on the floor of the House.

I want to pick up the sentiment that has been raised by some members about the need for New Zealand to do more on the humanitarian front. As the Prime Minister has told us today, we have committed about $13.5 million—add to that another $1 million today—to a range of initiatives to try to alleviate the suffering of those who have been displaced and disadvantaged in the Middle East. We have worked, and will continue to work, with a range of organisations, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Unicef, the Red Cross, the World Food Programme, and UN relief works agencies, as well as a range of NGOs. Anyone who has been to any of the refugee camps, as I have, will know the scale of the challenge that confronts the people there. We need to do our part, on an ongoing basis.

In Turkey we have taken a rather different approach. We have engaged in bilateral programmes with the Government of Turkey to construct schools in the refugee camps of that country. Increasingly, we need to look for bilateral options to work with countries facing this challenge. The region I mention particularly is Jordan, the smallest of those countries, with I think a million and a half refugees now to contend with. This is a country that is at risk of being truly swamped by the challenge that now confronts it.

I heard the words of the co-leader of the Green Party suggesting that there was no role for military action in relation to Iraq. I simply say to her that those words will give no comfort to the people in towns like Kobani or any of the other towns across Iraq where we have seen cold-blooded killers and people engaged in torture, engaged in the destruction of a very large piece of territory across Iraq and Syria. Once there is a space created through military action—and I believe that the actions that have been undertaken by other countries in that respect do need to be seen in a positive light, given the risk confronting some of the communities there—there will be a need to look at areas for capacity-building and support in Iraq, in particular. We need to remind ourselves that the seeds of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant were sown when we saw the Maliki Government in Iraq turn on too many of its own people, showing a lack of respect for their human rights, and engaging in acts—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Sown in 2003.

Well, there is a long history there, as Mr Goff reminds us, and I say simply that we need to be ready to do some work in the capacity-building area. I agree with what Mr Shearer said about the need to look at law and justice agencies, and areas of that sort, once we do see the opportunity to move beyond the current conflict.

I just want, finally, to recognise the words of those who have referred to New Zealand’s role on the UN Security Council from 1 January 2015. It is not until 1 January that we take up the new seat on the UN Security Council, but, like others, I was delighted to see three-quarters of the countries in the world support New Zealand for a seat on the council. But with that support goes a very great sense of responsibility.

If you look at the key conflicts in the Middle East, the UN Security Council has been a bystander for far too many years. If you look at what happened in Syria in recent times, the UN Security Council was a bystander by reason of the veto used by more than one of the permanent members of the council. As we have seen in relation to the Iran nuclear file, the UN Security Council has very largely been a bystander on that issue as we have seen the P5+1 process take place outside the UN environment. And, of course, in relation to the Middle East peace process as a whole, we have seen a very good resolution passed, I think, some 47 years ago, but no real action to breathe life into that resolution to create a longstanding basis for peace in the Middle East.

So I say to members of the House taking the longer-term view that New Zealand as a new member of the UN Security Council must commit itself to working with other countries to create a Security Council environment where these challenges are no longer ignored and where the big countries in the world confront their responsibilities.

I have listened closely to the Prime Minister’s statement this morning and to this debate on New Zealand’s engagement towards the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). In my contribution I want to focus on the broader aspect of the ISIL situation—namely, the international action there and New Zealand’s policy on that. We note the Government’s decision not to send SAS troops to Iraq and we support that, but in answering questions after his speech, the Prime Minister said his Government supported the coalition’s military action against ISIL—and that is the elephant in the Chamber. So this House must address the question of the legal validity and the political merit—or not—of military action against ISIL. Should there be an international armed force against ISIL and should New Zealand support it? Our answer, with respect, is no. Let me convey our reasoning.

We have asked ourselves five questions and they are these. Does ISIL comprise a threat to peace and security that warrants responsive action of some kind by the international community? If so, should that response include military action? If so, is New Zealand obliged to join that military action? If not, should it decide to do so on a discretionary basis? If not, what other action might New Zealand take that is substantive and constructive?

The Greens agree that ISIL poses a threat to peace and security. This is established in Security Council Resolution 2170 of 15 August, adopted under article 39. It is based on a judgment that ISIL is a terrorist organisation, which, on 2 July, declared itself to be the Islamic State with universal jurisdiction over all Muslims everywhere. It has said that: “The legality of all emirates, groups, states and organisations becomes null by the expansion of the caliph’s authority …”. ISIL has also launched genocidal campaigns against the Yezidi and Kurdish peoples. Its preferred method of political contestation is the beheading of journalists in the desert. These actions warrant prosecution by the International Criminal Court and a response under the responsibility to protect doctrine. So an appropriate response by the international community is required.

Should that response include military action? Resolution 2170 called upon UN member States to take all measures necessary and appropriate against ISIL, in accordance with international law. The resolution was adopted unanimously under chapter 7, but Russia stated that the resolution did not constitute authority for military action. In situations of crisis, Security Council resolutions contain what is diplomatically termed “constructive ambiguity”, which enables those preferring military action to claim authorisation, and those opposing it to deny such authorisation.

Of course, military action has in fact been undertaken by eight Western and four Arab States. The United States, leading the military coalition, is claiming Iraq’s formal request for collective self-defence under article 51, which is an inherent right that does not require council authorisation anyway. That self-defence claim, however, covers Iraq but not Syria, which has not made such a request. So, with Syria, is the coalition claiming resolution 2170 or the responsibility to protect doctrine as a justification? The coalition owes a formal explanation to the world as to the legal basis of their actions.

Is New Zealand obliged to join any military action, even if it were legally valid? The short answer is no. Under the charter, we have an obligation to respect binding decisions of the council and not work against them, but without any formal agreements concluded under article 43, we are not obliged to participate in any military actions, even those authorised by the council. That requires a separate and sovereign decision on our own part. Should New Zealand, then, participate in such military action? That is a political judgment and our answer is no.

The use of force by New Zealand can be justified in three ways. The first is narrow nationalism—to defend our country, our own territory, and nothing else. The second is broad nationalism—to defend our national security by deploying troops overseas to avert a domestic threat back home. The third is internationalism—to participate in collective force and to maintain peace and security, even if the threat to ourselves down here is distant. In supporting the coalition action the Prime Minister is advancing a justification based on the second and third of these. He is effectively saying that Islamic radicalisation, including some Kiwis returned from jihad, poses an unacceptable threat of violence here, and that to avert that we must assist in stopping and eradicating the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) over there. But this broad nationalism is mixed with a call to support allies. There is not a word about UN authorisation.

The Greens’ view is different again. We apply the political criteria for the use of force under the responsibility to protect doctrine endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly. These questions have to be answered. Is the causal threshold for action against ISIL met? If so, is the intention of the coalition States right? If so, are we at the stage where the last resort of military action has genuinely arrived? If so, are air strikes proportional to the threat posed by ISIL? If so, is there a reasonable prospect of success in halting the suffering inflicted by ISIL or are the consequences of military action there likely to be worse than inaction? A genuine application of these criteria makes it clear to us that the use of force against ISIL is not justifiable. Reasonable people may differ over these questions. I acknowledge that those arguing against military action must advance credible alternative strategies to eliminate the threat of ISIL, but that applies to all forms of terrorism. We look to the 2006 UN global counter-terrorism strategy, which says to look first at the causes of the problem and work on them.

So, equally, where is the reasoning process by which the coalition States have come to the conclusions they have? Where is the debate in the Security Council that explores these issues transparently? I have scrutinised the council debate behind Resolutions 2170 and 2178, which were adopted within the last 3 months. The debate does not reflect this degree of transparency. Where is the written opinion from our own Attorney-General, tabled before this House, affirming the legality of such military action? Where is the accompanying paper tabled by the Prime Minister setting out the political case, essentially meeting the above criteria I mentioned? There will be a Cabinet paper. Why not release the Cabinet paper so that members of the legislature can explore and debate the considerations entertained?

I am no stranger to crises. I worked as a Kiwi diplomat on the Thailand-Cambodia border in the early 1980s. I took parliamentarian missions into Haiti and Burundi during the height of their domestic crises. I have visited Gaza and the West Bank and witnessed house demolitions. I have travelled in the Syrian eastern desert as the clouds of war of 2003 were forming. I have experienced riots in Jordan during the days of 9/11. I have recently visited the refugee camps on the Jordan border with Syria. I know how emotion and rationality wage war in the human psyche when we are under severe strain, both individually and collectively. Nothing in my personal experience persuades me that military action is the politically wise response. It requires diplomatic negotiation towards a durable political settlement, supported by humanitarian aid. We should not support any military action against ISIS.

As the New Zealand First leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, has outlined, we welcome the statement from the Prime Minister today on New Zealand’s response to the serious threat from Islamic State (IS). We do believe that the Prime Minister has been less than forthright. Now—finally—we have a statement in which we are told that 10 military planners will be going to Iraq. As soon as one of those military professionals arrives in Iraq, there can be no doubt that New Zealand has committed to being involved in a new conflict. Some may already be there. We understand that three left yesterday, though the PM claimed on the same day that no decisions about Iraq had been made. With our foot in the door, there is no going back. It is quite clear which side we are on. From the Islamic State point of view, that means we are the enemy. To suggest that we are not part of this conflict because we are not putting in combat forces is double-speak.

The Prime Minister is trying to disguise his intentions. What is the point about not being clear? We are going to be represented in Iraq. We will be in an active campaign to defeat IS. The Prime Minister does acknowledge that IS will be difficult to get rid of. This might be a long campaign. The Government must, then, put New Zealanders at ease about the state of our Defence Force. Is it up to scratch? Is it up to the job we are giving the armed forces to do? Because if there is a long conflict, we may become further involved, if not in Iraq then somewhere else. Are our forces well-equipped? Can they meet the challenges of deploying in another country with quite different terrain and climate from ours? We have had too many reports about the failure of armed forces, vehicles, and equipment. We want assurances that our Defence Force is in a state where the men and women who will serve for us will not be let down by failing equipment.

As a former member of the New Zealand Army, I know about the great effort that our servicemen and servicewomen put into all of their duties. Today we are discussing matters of high national importance and security. There is a perspective that must not be overlooked—that is, the situation of the men and women in the armed forces, whom we rely on to represent New Zealand in whatever capacity we call on them. It is all very well to talk about grand principles and broad diplomatic ideals, but, ultimately, countering terrorism is about capability—personnel and resources. Our armed forces are small, but they must be professional and well-equipped. That is an essential condition that must underpin New Zealand’s response to global terrorism.

I am taking a call in this House as Minister responsible for the GCSB and Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service. The Prime Minister today gave a very important speech. He has said more than has ever been said in this country about some of the security threats facing this nation. Although there are very good reasons that we cannot talk about everything our security agencies do, the Prime Minister has made the remarks he has made today because within the limits on what we can say, we intend to say and explain whatever we can, whenever we can. The threat to New Zealand from foreign fighters and would-be foreign fighters, to which the Prime Minister has referred today, should not be a cause for alarm. It should, however, serve as a reminder that the view that New Zealand exists in a benign strategic environment is misguided. As Mr McCully has said, let us not think we are immune to the threats posed to other Western countries. We have all seen the increase in parliamentary security around these precincts over the past 2 weeks, and a number of people in this place will have visited the Canadian Parliament. The shock felt in Ottawa 2 weeks ago attests to the completely unexpected nature of the violence. The threats we and our friends face are new threats, and we have to respond in a considered manner, but we must respond.

First, I want to endorse what other honourable members have said about humanitarian assistance. I think Mrs King put it very well when she explained the meeting that she and I had with members of the Iraqi community in Wellington just a couple of weeks ago. Their relatives are suffering greatly in places like Mosul and on the Nineveh Plain, and desperately need our help and the help of other nations. In deciding to look at this area, the Government has been very mindful not only of the realities that face New Zealand but of our international obligations. Mrs King—rightly, in my opinion—referred specifically to UN Security Council Resolution 2178, adopted unanimously on 24 September 2014 under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter. Among other things, the Security Council called on all member States, in accordance with their obligations under international law, to cooperate in efforts to address the threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters, including preventing foreign terrorist fighters from crossing their borders. The Security Council also emphasised the importance of States ensuring that their domestic laws and regulations are fit for purpose in relation to their nationals who travel or attempt to travel to a State “other than their States of residence or nationality for the purpose of the perpetration, planning, or preparation of, or participation in, terrorist acts or the providing or receiving of terrorist training,”.

The Greens have singularly failed to acknowledge the substance of this resolution this afternoon—hardly surprising but very disappointing. I am disappointed in Kennedy Graham, who pretty well knows off by heart every United Nations Security Council resolution when it suits him. But he did not address key issues raised by this resolution. New Zealand has legislation that, on paper at least, addresses these issues, but the legislation is not perfect. It has gaps. It does not contain all the tools that we require. Our actions to date are in accordance with our international obligations, but the problems we confront are not ours alone. They span countries and they span borders. We would be neglecting our responsibilities not to address them.

The Prime Minister has this morning announced a very measured set of legislative changes that will enable the security services more effectively to carry out their work. He has also announced a $7 million financial boost for the SIS, which will ensure that it can carry out the work we need it to do. For all the hyperbole we have heard from the usual suspects this afternoon, the changes announced are very measured. No new criminal offences are being introduced. Several changes are being made to the law relating to passport cancellation. Several changes will make it easier for the New Zealand SIS to carry out operational activities that most New Zealanders would probably already think it is able to carry out.

I want to mention the proposal to give the SIS an emergency surveillance power to conduct for no longer than 48 hours urgent surveillance before a warrant can be issued. Some people will contend this change is a sweeping one, but it is not. They are wrong. It is important to put the proposal in context. The proposal echoes the power already given to certain authorities under section 48 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, which provides that a “device warrant need not be obtained for use of surveillance device in some situations of emergency or urgency”. That Act has been in force for over 2 years and the sky has not fallen in. It is not envisaged that this power will be used often by the SIS, but it is important that the SIS has the ability to investigate an emergency situation where the circumstances require it. In order to use the power, the SIS director will have to be satisfied that the threshold for issuing a warrant would be met. The Prime Minister has also made clear this morning his expectation that the SIS will report publicly on an annual basis outlining how many times it has used the power.

So take this hypothetical: an emergency situation arises. I am the Minister responsible for the SIS. I am unavailable because I am in another part of the country. I am not back in Wellington for, say, 20 hours. If the matter is not addressed within 20 hours the consequences are very serious. The urgent surveillance is undertaken and then I return to Wellington to consider, along with the Commissioner of Security Warrants, a warrant. If we do not agree that the surveillance was urgent or warranted, a warrant will not be signed. The material must then be destroyed. There is a disincentive to use the power for anything other than truly urgent situations.

I look forward to the important debate the House will have when the legislation is introduced, and in debating the legislation it should also be borne in mind that Parliament will need to consider all our security legislation over the coming months. As part of the extensive oversight measures introduced last year—and I acknowledge Mr Dunne for his work on that matter—section 21 of the Intelligence and Security Committee Act requires a “review of the intelligence and security agencies, the legislation governing them, and their oversight legislation … [to] be commenced before 30 June 2015;”. That means a comprehensive review of all relevant legislation. So there will be a lot of work for this House to do in this area in the next 12 to 18 months. As I said last week, there has to be robust debate. No proposition should go unchallenged. Dissent can be a very good thing. It is in the public interest that members from all sides work together to ensure the law, both substantive and procedural, is fit for purpose and serves the interests of this country. That is why I hope the House will engage with the detail of these proposals with an eye on ensuring a quality legislative product rather than scoring political points.

In some ways this is the sort of debate that is the most important debate that we ever have in the House of Representatives, and that is because we deal with fundamental responsibilities that we in this place have: first, to safeguard our citizens against real or potential risks, and, second, to make a decision about how a nation like New Zealand should respond to the risks and the threats created by the wider situation in the Middle East. I say the wider situation in the Middle East because you cannot differentiate the threat that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) poses from the factors that have led to its creation, which are the appalling humanitarian conditions that emanated from the oppression by Bashar al-Assad in Syria on the one hand and the appalling things that were happening in Iraq, not only Sunni against Shi’a but also Shi’a against Sunni.

So when we start to talk about the threats and the appalling brutality in the Middle East, let us not pretend for a moment that we are talking about only one organisation, ISIS. Yes, it is brutal. Yes, it is disgusting. Yes, it poses a potential threat. But I have to say that it has killed nothing like the 200,000 people in Syria who have died because of the actions of Bashar al-Assad. Equally, if you look at the problem in Iraq, it is not, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated before, simply something that resulted from the al-Maliki prime ministership. It is something that goes back to the misguided decision in 2003 to invade Iraq without proper preparation and without any examination of the unintended consequences of that action.

I want to come back and divide my comments up into two parts. One is the question of what threat might exist in New Zealand and how we respond to it, and the second is how we should respond to that broader situation in the Middle East. The first thing I have to say is that I welcome the fact that the Government has been more forthcoming in terms of its proposals and sharing them with other political parties, but I do express my regret that this legislation will be passed in the 2 weeks after we come back to the House. That, in my view, is insufficient time for this House to give proper scrutiny to the fundamental issues that are involved whenever you extend the powers of a security intelligence organisation. I think that offsetting that is the fact that there will be a sunset clause, so the Government has limited what it intends to put into that legislation, and that at the insistence of the Labour Party there will be a truncated select committee process, at least, so we can allow public and specialist input into the legislation.

I want to say that it is important that we are vigilant about the threats posed by terrorism but that we should also be proportionate and balanced. I lived in the United Kingdom at the time of the IRA terrorist attacks. That threat was far more extensive than anything that we have seen from ISIS. That is just a fact. I was working in the Parliament buildings, in the House of Commons, and there was a real and present threat to the lives of people living in the United Kingdom because of the actions of the IRA. We did not, however, brand it with an ideology, such as calling it Islamic, and the British Government dealt with it.

I have to say to the Prime Minister as well that I read his speech carefully and there were things that I agreed with in the speech and things that I disagreed with. One was the impression given that the international environment has become much less benign over time. I was Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time of 9/11. I can tell you that when we had a synchronised and coordinated attack that killed thousands of people in the United States, it was bigger than anything I have felt from ISIS in New Zealand and internationally. When the biggest country in the world closes its borders, it is not benign. So let us see this in context. Yes, we should take ISIS seriously, but no, we should not blow it out of proportion into something that it is not. I am also old enough to remember the dark days of the Cold War when we had multiple nuclear weapons on high alert and civilisation as we know it could have come to an end at any particular occasion. So, yes, let us take the threats seriously, but let us keep it proportionate.

It is also important domestically not to go too far in the legislation, because we know that what causes radicalising of a minority part of the population is when you create conditions where they feel alienated and where they feel that they are being discriminated against. I have got a significant Muslim population in my electorate of Mt Roskill. I have known them for years. I have worked with them for years. I can say that this is a group in my community that is hard working, peaceful, and law abiding. But if we start to create the impression that Islamic equals terrorism and we start to see New Zealanders being abusive of Muslim people in this country, then we will create the very conditions that we are setting out to avoid.

I have to say, from talking to many of my Muslim friends, that they are subject in the street to increasing abuse because of their appearance or their dress. So more important than this legislation might be dealing with that situation. I acknowledge that John Key said in his speech that our Muslim community is overwhelmingly positive and law abiding. More important might be how we ensure that that community does not feel so alienated from the community that it is part of that we create the conditions for action by people with personality disorders.

I think that the moves that are made in the proposed legislation are not extreme moves. We have the Search and Surveillance Act, and I cannot see why powers that are available to the police might not be available to the SIS when confronting similar situations, but, naturally, we want to be clear about the safeguards to prevent the abuse of that power. The reason we do not have visual surveillance provisions in the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act is that I think it dates back to 1969.

I acknowledge that there might be some occasions when Attorney-General is not available to sign a warrant, but we do live in the 21st century, and I do not think it ever takes 48 hours to get in touch with the Attorney-General. If it does, we would have to wonder what he was up to and why. I think that in the select committee we need to say yes, there may be a provision where in an emergency situation the action takes place, but no, we are not going to leave it for 48 hours before we regularise that warrant. That is something that I hope we can look at in good faith in the select committee consideration.

I want to come, finally, to the question of passports. The right to travel freely is a precious right, but it is not an absolute right. If we know somebody in New Zealand is about to head off and join an organisation that the UN regards as committing crimes against humanity and war crimes—and it does not matter whether it is for ISIS or for any other UN-designated terrorist organisation—then of course we have a responsibility to stop that person. We should not, however, render people stateless who are currently travelling on passports. It is critical that if a person overseas loses their passport—if it is taken away from them—then we have an immediate availability of travel documents to allow them to return to New Zealand. I hope that is what the Government is proposing.

What I want to say finally about the contribution of the campaign against ISIS is that there is a lot we can do on a humanitarian basis. We can make a difference. There are millions of refugees. That is where we should be focusing. We can make a difference in our role on the United Nations Security Council. When we sit down in Washington with other countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey, who are part of the coalition of the willing, and find out that the resources that ISIS is receiving—the money, the people, and the weapons—are coming from those very countries, then that is the place to start to isolate ISIS and to defeat it. I am not at all convinced that military action is appropriate in these circumstances. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Yes, there might have been good intentions to remove Saddam or to remove Gaddafi, but as a result of misguided efforts by the West hundreds of thousands of innocent people lost their lives and we ended up with a situation much worse than it was even under those oppressive regimes. We should be very wary of entering in a military capacity in any sense into that conflict in the Middle East.

Allow me to take just a couple of moments, firstly to thank the House for what I think was a very constructive debate. I think the situation that we face and the threats that we face from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) warrant the careful consideration that the House has given it this afternoon and the mature and intelligent debate that people have added.

Let me give parties an absolute assurance that the select committee debate will literally be that—an opportunity to test out the proposed changes that the Government is making. As we have said, they will be narrowly focused and, as I think a number of speakers have pointed out, they are appropriately set. We acknowledge that the 48-hour issue is something that needs to be carefully considered and carefully monitored.

The point, really, around the 48 hours—if I can make this point—is simply that it does take a little longer to raise a warrant, not because the Attorney-General is not available to sign it in his capacity as the Minister responsible; it is because the commissioner takes a very long period of time, and rightfully so, to very thoughtfully go through a warrant. So when the commissioner turns up, he—as has been the case with Sir John Jeffries and now Sir Bruce Robertson—actually spends an appropriate period of time making absolutely sure that that warrant should be raised. So the only point here really is that sometimes that process—if by chance of the way of information that came to us, we were to hear something that we felt we needed to act on very, very quickly, that is the rare and exceptional circumstance. And really, unless the SIS were absolutely convinced that warrant could be raised, it would be ridiculous for the SIS to actually go on an exercise of gathering information, because they would have to destroy it. They would not be able to use it. Actually, I think it would damage their reputation if we started having the SIS going out and saying that they had constantly been undertaking this 48-hour surveillance. But look, I think it is one of those things Parliament should kick around, and we will take those discussions in good faith. So that is really the main issue there.

In terms of the final point, I would simply make this point in relation to the Government’s suggestion of what we should be doing on the ground in Iraq. I share the view with those who say that in the end the situation in Iraq has to be resolved with the Iraqis. It actually has to be resolved with a Government that recognises not a secular response to this but an inclusive response. Ultimately, unless the Sunnis, the Shi’as and the Kurds are listened to and they feel as if they are included, a long-term solution in Iraq will never be found. It will not matter how much military effort you put in, it will not resolve it.

So the Iraqis have to fight their own battles, and actually they have to find a diplomatic way through. But it will be necessary, ultimately, to combat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and that is clearly on display. We saw that yesterday when ISIL essentially executed 322 people—women and children. We cannot let that happen unanswered. The Government is trying to take a careful but measured response. But I think putting our SAS in on the ground as some sort of killing machine would not work as a long-term solution. I think in the end Iraq has to be the owner of its own long-term problems. We are here to help, but I do not think we can fight its battles for it.