Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill

I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill that it have the authority to consider and, if it thinks fit, adopt the amendments in my name set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43. In the second reading I referred to the fact that in 2007 a great number of the members of this House thought it was wise to get rid of the sedition laws in the Crimes Act. Back then one party said that this was a very foolish move and that it was naive in the extreme, and we—and we alone—opposed it. For the interest of some of the members of this House who today want to appear as paragons of virtue in respect of the defence of their nation, it begs the question: what were you doing back then?

I want to make it very clear that this country has become terribly naive when it comes to securing and protecting its citizens, and that is what the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Act did in 2007. All sorts of weak-kneed decisions have led to this country having very bad border control. Incidentally, we never said we were opposed to Muslims coming this country; we said we were opposed to people not being carefully screened as to whether they appreciated the need when they came here to have some respect for our laws, our traditions, our values, and those things that make New Zealand what it is. That is what I said. I am not having New Zealand First misquoted by johnny-come-latelys who, whenever they are politically embarrassed, do not want to own up to their naivety and stupidity, but rather would try to say—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I would just like to remind the right honourable member—because this is a process that is relatively rarely followed—of Standing Order 176 and also, in particular, Speaker’s ruling 81(1), which make it clear that this is a very narrow debate that cannot go to the substance of the amendment, just whether the Committee should debate it. It certainly cannot go to the history leading up to it.

Thank you very much for giving me that warning after I have had a chance to repeat it. This is a debating chamber, of course, and we are talking about provisions to do with this country’s security, whether it be the major bill that we are looking at, decisions we have taken in the past, or an alternative. We in New Zealand First are saying that there is in our law, and throughout the law of the Commonwealth—probably one of the finest systems of law in the world, the British system of law—a rising problem. We had this safeguard that could be used. We did away with it naively. We are saying that with one simple amendment we could reintroduce it and have some real security in the future, rather than panic measures to please commitments we have made offshore without telling the New Zealand people.

There are two reasons why this is a dopey motion. First, it is out of scope—there is a very limited set of amendments that we are seeking to debate here. Second, as I said some weeks ago at the first reading—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Could I just sit the member down? I know he is not deliberately criticising the Chair, but if it was totally out of scope, then of course I would have ruled it out.

Thank you for your wisdom, Mr Assistant Speaker. The second point is that next year there is going to be a substantive review of Part 5 of the Crimes Act, where sedition was before it was rightfully repealed in 2007, and there will be ample opportunity to look at those substantive propositions in a careful and considered way. That is why what he suggests is—not surprisingly—dopey.