Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill

I move, That the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill, and at the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 3 December 2019, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, and 194(1)(b) and (c).

The Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill addresses what is increasingly a pressing issue, an impending issue, and a very important issue, and I wanted to give a little bit of background about where we’ve got to and why we’ve got to this point today. This bill follows a major review commissioned by this Government into our Terrorism Suppression Act. That Act will be known to some members of this House. It was found in 2008, as a result of events, to be full of gaps and to be largely unworkable. That was the commentary at the time, including by the police and, as I recall, the then Commissioner of Police, as well as the Solicitor-General.

In spite of that, over the following 10 years, nothing really happened to it, but this Government, from September last year, commenced a review of that legislation. It is the primary piece of legislation dealing with terrorism in this country, and we have to get it right.

From the outset of the review, one of the issues that needed to be considered was the question of whether we have the means to deal with people who pose a risk to the community but don’t come under our criminal justice system, particularly where they have committed a terrorist act, and especially where that is offshore. That is, to abbreviate that issue, the issue of the returning foreign terrorist fighter. So the possibility of returning foreign terrorist fighters has been around for a while. Now, that issue has sharpened up in the middle of this year, as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria caliphate collapsed following the clearance of the Middle Euphrates River Valley in Syria, and also following comments by a New Zealand passport holder, a New Zealand citizen, who had publicly made calls about his impending return to New Zealand and that he was seeking to return to New Zealand. That was, of course, Mark Taylor, otherwise known as Mohammad Daniel.

I say that because there is an actual risk that we are dealing with, and there are some members in this House who get the intelligence risk assessments. One of those is the Leader of the Opposition, so he is fully aware of the risk that New Zealand is facing because of the rapidly changing situation in Syria at the moment.

At the point of the collapse of the caliphate, the Government made the decision that we would put in place as quickly as we could a control orders regime to deal with the possibility of those in that conflict zone with the rights to turn to New Zealand coming back to New Zealand and posing a potential risk to the community. It was intended then, as it is now, to keep it narrowly focused, because this is, by and large, an interim measure pending the completion of the full review of the Terrorism Suppression Act. I might say that, at that time, the National Party was briefed on the issue on exactly those points—this was coming, it would be narrowly focused, and largely interim in nature.

I might say also that as a result of the consultation within Government, and the three parties that make up Government, the Green Party had said that they would not support such measures. Nevertheless, the legislation was developed and there was consultation throughout that, and the Green Party continued to assert their view that they would not support it. Nevertheless, it was endorsed by Government, the bill in its complete form was provided to the National Party, the National Party had it for a week, and the National Party then said, a week later, apparently following a caucus meeting, that they would support the bill to the first reading—and, in fact, then concluded their message by saying, “We look forward to the announcement as to timing.” No conditions were attached to that support. That is unremarkable; that’s the sort of thing that the Labour Party at least did when it was in Opposition dealing with national security legislation. Because national security is important, you support it, and if there are issues with it, you deal with it through the process that you then have.

I want to come back to subsequent events a little later in my comments. I want to very quickly summarise what the bill does. The bill allows the police to make an application to the High Court for a control order in relation to somebody largely assessed as having committed terrorist acts overseas.

There are some conditions around that. The terrorist acts have to be terrorist acts that accord with the New Zealand definition of that term; so it’s not what another jurisdiction says. Now, if a judge is satisfied that a person has committed terrorist acts overseas, then the judge may make an order imposing appropriate and proportionate controls on that person. That can include electronic monitoring, that could include a requirement to reside at a specific address, that could include reporting to the police, and there are a number of others as well. There’s a fair amount of flexibility. You want the judge to make a judgment—to make the order.

The order is then served on the person. If they are across the border, if they are already in the country, they have an option about whether their application is made on notice or without notice. In any event, the person who is the subject of the order—there is a requirement: they are advised that they can review the order and they are entitled to legal aid in order to do so. An order cannot last for more than two years, but there is a right to renew the order two more times so that a control order can be in place for up to six years.

There has been engagement over the bill in recent days, and following the National Party confirming in writing that they would support the bill to first reading without at that time communicating any conditions to it, they a few hours later then announced they wanted some changes to the bill. Some of those I would describe as unnecessarily Draconian. They later communicated that if they didn’t get changes to the bill, they might vote against the bill in the first reading. Later, they said in response to a question from a journalist that they probably would support the bill. And then today, they have announced that they won’t support the bill.

I can tell the House that I met with the Leader of the Opposition on Monday evening. We went through the issues that the National Party had. Following that meeting and following consideration of the representations made at that meeting, my office got back to the office of the Leader of the Opposition and listed four things that I thought the Government could agree to that would improve the bill. A short time later, the Leader of the Opposition’s office came back and said they wanted more things.

I have to say that following the events of last week, I engaged in discussions with the Green Party. They, last Friday, indicated that they were keen to discuss the bill and the issues they had with it and whether or not they might find the basis on which to agree to it. Now, the Green Party, as I said, was involved in consultation with the bill throughout the usual Government processes, and during that time had made no counter-proposal, but I dealt with some proposals from the Green Party over the weekend. So that is where we are, and it is unfortunate that there has been what I think is, frankly, blatant party politicking in relation to this issue—and that is even after efforts to reach agreement.

So I conclude my comments on the introduction of this bill with a message to all parties in this Parliament that this is an issue of national security. There is the possibility of at least one person who poses a serious risk to the community in this country returning in the immediate future, and that risk is real and it is rising every day. It is the first duty of every Government to ensure the safety of its people, and often a judgment has to be made about the level of the threat that is posed and therefore the measures that are provided to deal with it. Right now, New Zealand has people—citizens in a conflict zone—who voluntarily went there to engage in or to support an extremist, violent movement. Those people are entitled to return to New Zealand and they could do so at any time. This is real. As a Minister, I don’t have a choice about whether I weigh up these facts and make a judgment and whether I respond to the risks and the threats. I have done so.

The responsibility of being in Government means being responsible and exercising the burdens and powers of Government. The Greens are part of the Government and they have that responsibility. To the National Party, they wish to be in Government one day; they must exercise that responsibility. But as another large party in Parliament, I say it is their duty to show that responsibility at all times. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Terrorism is a real and a significant threat. It is a threat in New Zealand as it is a threat around the world. And I have to reflect that, for years and years, when this side of the House was in Government, and I sat on the national security committee and I sat on the Intelligence and Security Committee, and we brought piece of legislation after piece of legislation to this House to protect the citizens of New Zealand, what we heard from many of the people now in Government was a barrage of the reasons why they wouldn’t support us, because they wanted to pander to this naive and, frankly, dangerous view that somehow these things don’t happen here.

It is utterly ridiculous and misguided to suggest that New Zealand doesn’t face exactly the same threats that our near neighbours and our allies and countries around the world face. That sort of head-in-the-sand approach is wrong and it is dangerous, and yet that is what we have heard far too often from many of the members who now sit in Government. The reality is terrorism can happen in New Zealand, it has happened in New Zealand, and it’s highly likely it will happen again. It is utterly naive to think that New Zealand doesn’t have to do everything it can to protect our citizens against those known and understood threats.

The one thing I agree with the Minister of Justice on is when he said that the first and most important duty of a Government is to act to protect its citizens. None of us want to look back after another tragedy and point to this day and this bill and wish that this Government had done more to protect the people of New Zealand. And I fear that that is what is going to happen. Nobody can understand and predict every single eventuality; we know that. But what we are talking about in this legislation is the failure of this Government to act on known threats and take clear, obvious, well-applied international protocols to make sure New Zealand is no less protected than countries like Australia and Canada and the UK. We’re not asking the Government to go further. We’re not asking the Government to have a crystal ball. We’re just saying accept and understand that New Zealand faces the same risks, and step up to the plate and do the minimum you need to do to keep New Zealanders safe. We are not going to sit back quietly while this Government puts its political agenda, its egos, and its coalition strategising ahead of the needs of New Zealanders. It is inadequate, it is unacceptable, and National is not going to be a part of it.

Now, I have to address some of what the Minister said in his comments, because he was quite wrong in how he characterised National’s approach to this legislation. He’s quite right—and we put out a press release, we didn’t hide it—that we wanted to vote for this bill at first reading. We wanted to vote for the bill, send it to select committee, and then work constructively on the ways that we thought it needed to be improved, because we are a responsible Opposition. We will always, in Government or Opposition, prioritise our national security. That was our desire, but the Minister made it abundantly clear he had zero interest in working with the National Party. He had zero interest in making any of the changes or even discussing those changes at select committee. So when Andrew Little ruled out any openness for the select committee to even look at the changes that we were proposing, it was clear to us this was a Minister who was putting politics and his ego ahead of this legislation. That is the truth of the matter, and now the Minister wants to rewrite history.

You can tell this is more about politics for Andrew Little than people because of how much of that speech he just spent talking about Simon Bridges and the National Party—hardly any commentary at all about the real threats to New Zealand and the deficiencies in this bill. It was all about the politics, all about covering his backside, all about his ego. This is the truth: the truth is he has weakened this legislation to pander to the Greens to get his votes, because his ego wouldn’t let him sit down and work constructively with the biggest, the most popular political party in New Zealand. Mr Little, this side of the House represents the biggest single group of votes any party in this Parliament got. We represent a big chunk of New Zealand, and that Minister refused to deal with us. He didn’t want to build a consensus, bipartisan, strong solution; he wanted to play politics, and that is shameful. It is an utterly shameful abdication of his responsibility to keep New Zealanders safe. Andrew Little said he couldn’t be bothered working with National because he didn’t want to, in his words, and I quote, “keep dicking around”. Well, actually, Mr Little, building a consensus on national security, working with whoever you need to work with to make New Zealanders safer isn’t dicking around; it is doing your job and you have failed to do it.

We should have a bill that is far stronger than this. We should have, by the way, enough time at select committee to look at the deficiencies in the bill. And we’ve just heard from the Minister that not only did he have zero interest in working with National constructively on any weaknesses in the bill, he is now going to ram it through select committee in such a short time frame that there is almost zero opportunity for anybody to point out deficiencies in the bill. The report back of 3 December—we’ve just heard—is an unreasonable, unwarranted failure of this Government to be open to any criticism, any feedback, or any constructive input from anybody. That’s because this Government thinks they know best. They don’t want to listen to anyone else, because no one else gets it like they do. That is wrong; that is bull-headed.

Let me just touch on a couple of the very important issues that National knows are missing from this bill that we wanted to work with the Government on, and I know others of my colleagues will continue to take this up. This is not, from our side, idle opposition. We put out a press release very clearly publicly stating: here are the areas where the bill is deficient; this is why this bill fails to keep New Zealanders safe against a very real, imminent threat to New Zealand. Everybody now knows in New Zealand that we have New Zealanders who have been seriously radicalised and have been acting in that radicalised ideology for decades. Those people present a very clear risk to New Zealand, but this bill seems to suggest that someone who has been radicalised by extremist ideology will come back to New Zealand, and, magically, after six years, have forgotten all of that and be back to being a Norman Rockwell painting of a picket fence and 2.5 kids and a dog. That is idiotic. It is idiotic to suggest that, after six years, there will no longer be any need for oversight of someone who has been a radicalised terrorist for years and years and years.

Now, there’s no civil liberties issue at play here. If you read the legislation in clause 25(3), it makes it very clear that the control orders are in place for two years and they can be renewed twice. At each step, the courts, who are not known as radical hardliners, I’d have to say, have to satisfy themselves that that’s appropriate. So every two years, the courts will check: is this still appropriate in these circumstances? So what then is the harm, Mr Little, in allowing the courts the ability to keep them in place longer, if that’s what’s needed? It’s not a blanket ban. It’s not a blanket imposition on these terrorists; it’s saying let’s give ourselves the power to act as we needed to act. But no, no, no—Mr Little knows better. He says six years is all we’d ever need. Well, the day one of these terrorists acts in a way that hurts New Zealanders after six years and two months, Mr Little is going to need to look himself in the mirror.

Another of the serious flaws in the bill is the suggestion that somehow radicalisation only applies to people over 18. And, again, why is this Government so arrogant to assume that every other country that we would look to has this wrong, and that in New Zealand radicalisation will only apply to people over 18? We know, and Mr Little knows, radicalisation applies to people over 14. We know that young people will be targeted for radicalisation. It happens in Australia, it happens in New Zealand, it happens around the world, and yet Mr Little apparently knows more than all of those people and doesn’t even want to discuss the potential need to have control orders in place for those in their late teens. Now, those are very carefully controlled—as I say, the courts have oversight, they’re a much shorter duration. Mr Little won’t even discuss—not only with National but, now we hear, through any sort of proper select committee process—the ability to even question what sort of controls we might need over those who are 16, 17. These people are being radicalised, they do present a threat, and I want to put the rights to keep New Zealanders safe ahead of Mr Little’s view that he knows best. The legislation at the moment has this slap-on-the-wrist penalty for breaching a control order of a couple of thousand dollars’ fine—couple of thousand dollars’ fine—potentially, maybe, up to a year in jail. It is inadequate. At the very least, it should be a five-year penalty.

Now, look, we don’t need to sit here and argue whether our ideas are going to be right, but at least we would have had the discussion.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to take a call on the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill. And I can just honestly say: that last contribution was actually clasping at straws. For 10 years when they were in Government—I actually was hoping that that member that just resumed her seat would actually share with this House the National terrorism suppression plan that they were undertaking and that they had 10 years to actually enact, but I didn’t hear that. The member also talked about a press release, well, unfortunately—I might be one of the few—I don’t really read National Party press releases. Again, I was hoping that member would indicate the concerns that she would have to the whole House; all I got was the six years threshold in clauses 24 and 25. Honestly? And I heard the Minister say that they wanted a counteroffer and one didn’t come forth, so I listen intensely to the Opposition around why they’re opposing the bill.

But I’m going to leave it there, because this bill that I’m standing to support—and proud of this Government—is part of a wider suite of the terrorism suppression reforms that the Minister outlined. This one here is giving the police some tools, extra tools, to keep New Zealanders safe.

It is targeting a small amount of people who have been radicalised and returned back into this nation, and there are steps in which the control orders are actually given, i.e., those that are concerned will approach your High Court to get those orders. When I talk about the High Court, it’s my honour to acknowledge a good local lad of Ngāti Konohi, Ngati Porou, and Ngāi Tahu in his recent appointment as the Chief Judge of the District Court, the honourable Heemi Taumaunu. I know that with this piece of legislation, his guidance will ensure that it’s applied fairly and that those two tests are actually upheld, as it actually indicates in this bill.

But I do hope the other members of the Opposition actually, in their contribution on this bill, of what’s wrong with it, get into the more nitty-gritty around the areas, rather than what we just had from that initial speaker, Amy Adams, who waxed lyrical about the shortcomings of the bill but I didn’t actually hear them. It didn’t meet the fact that in September 2017, New Zealanders voted for change—New Zealanders voted for change—and so here we are. We are enacting legislation that keeps New Zealanders, the public, safe when it comes to individuals returning back to our nation. This is what this bill is intending to do, the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill. It’s a fine piece of bill, it’s laid out there, and, obviously, it’s going to go off to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to be properly scrutinised. If that lot were constructive, they would actually put on the table the concerns of this bill by voting for it.

But they’ve declared their hands; they’re not going to have a bar of it. That’s the whole issue here—who is playing politics? This is what we come to Parliament for, to design legislation that’s fit for purpose. We have a piece of legislation that the Minister of Justice has introduced. He’s outlined the purpose of it, why it’s there. It’s to protect the New Zealand public, to give the police those extra tools. The threshold has to be a two-step before the High Court judge will give it, but also the monitoring of it, because, really, we want people to rehabilitate. But it’s not a wet bus ticket, an allegation that that member before me made assertions to around getting people out of it, because it actually clearly states in the bill, under clause 24, “Duration”, the processes in which we make sure we monitor those particular individuals that we are concerned with. It also ensures that if they do rehabilitate—and everyone, every New Zealander, has the right to rehabilitation—there is a process for them to do that.

It is a simple bill, like the Minister said. It’s part of an ongoing suite of reforms in the terrorism suppression safeguards that this Government is committed to. It’s a piece of legislation that’s simple to follow through. I’m looking forward to it going off to the foreign affairs select committee. I also want to encourage people to submit, to raise their issues, and to come up with other ideas if they want to strengthen this particular bill. That’s the process of the select committee, and I look forward to it taking its journey there and the report back to this House so we can progress this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

Oh, thank you, Madam Speaker. I think we must have a very different definition of some of the words that have been used in this debate, and I want to start with things like “consultation” and “bipartisanship” and “proper scrutiny”, as the previous speaker, Meka Whaitiri, said, and now “organisation”, because we’ve just heard that the members of the Government benches who are speaking on this bill are members of the Justice Committee and yet the bill is going to be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. So, organisationally, we are in something of disarray.

But let’s start with bipartisanship. The Minister of Justice is right: there has been a long period of bipartisanship in security issues, and that’s as it should be, but that has taken a significant hit this week by the Minister’s tin-eared belligerence over any sort of compromise or amendment to the bill. I’ll go through the time line—before I get into the substance of the bill, I want to go through the time line as I understand it. If the Minister doesn’t think I’ve got it right, I’m sure he will interject.

But I do know that he met with Mr Mitchell, the Opposition justice spokesperson, in July. At that time, the risk was becoming known, and the Minister had signalled his intention to introduce legislation. In principle, the Opposition justice spokesperson said, “Yes, of course we would support that sort of legislation.”, but as far as I can tell, there was no consultation between July and October in terms of the substance of the legislation that was intended to be introduced—no interjection there; it can’t have been incorrect. Even when the bill was introduced, the National Party, at short notice—there’s no question that we said we would support the bill at first reading; the press release said as much: “National will support terrorism legislation.” That was our hope then; it’s actually still our hope, if the Minister would take his tin ears off.

The following day, the Leader of the Opposition sent another press release: yes, it supports, it wants to act in good faith, but it needs to sit down with the Government to talk through the details and the proposed amendments that the National Party had. At that point, while we chose not to use this as leverage, we were aware that the Government did need the National Party’s support. We wanted to provide it. Then came the famous Monday meeting, and that’s where there is a very different perception of what went on between the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Justice. But the Minister has not been able to point to a single one of the seven proposed amendments that he could agree to, and the reason is quite simple: because he won’t. His idea of bipartisanship and cooperation is “We’ve got a bill at first reading which is the gold standard, does not need amendment, and so the National Party’s suggested changes are completely unnecessary.”

Why would we feel put upon alone on that? He’s just shown the same contempt and disdain for the whole select committee process. He’s sending it, firstly, not to the Justice Committee, despite being the Minister of Justice, and he’s going to give the whole country days, probably, to respond and weeks to submit, and then for officials to report back to this House through the select committee by 3 December. It is outrageous. So we don’t feel put upon alone; the Minister has shown contempt for the whole country.

He still hasn’t given me one—not one—suggested change that he could live with, and he says, in reply to my colleague Amy Adams’ speech, “How many? How many?” The answer, Minister, is we don’t know how many. How old? The answer is we don’t know. How long will it take to rehabilitate terrorism offenders? We don’t know, and to pick an arbitrary six-year limit, where the one person we do know about has been radicalised for more than twice that length of time, has severe issues, and will require very close monitoring before security officials can say he is safe to be left unmonitored, is simply wrong.

Like the Hon Amy Adams, I served on the Cabinet National Security Committee, and as Minister of Immigration and as Minister of Police, there are some things that come before that committee that can be very, very challenging. I agree with the Minister: we know a lot. We know a lot about the security risks to this country, but we don’t know everything. We didn’t know about the terrorist who committed an atrocity on 15 March. We know about some of the New Zealanders who have left to fight overseas and who would fall within the terms of this bill, but we don’t know them all. We don’t know the age of those people we don’t know, in the same way that the United Kingdom didn’t realise they were going to have 15-year-old girls leave and go through Turkey to Syria, and Australia has had school children who have left to become terrorists.

If the Minister doesn’t think that’s necessary or appropriate, why does he not just see it as a belts and braces issue? If he doesn’t think a 17-year-old could come back to this country and fall within the terms of this bill, where’s the harm in putting it in? If we don’t know how long it’s going to take to rehabilitate Mark Taylor, why put an arbitrary limit on it? And if we don’t know how many, as the Minister says—“how many”, which he said six times—well, then, what’s the harm in at least having a conversation about these proposed changes? The Minister will not do it.

I ask this of either the Minister or the member of the Green Party who is going to speak at this first reading: what on earth changed? Because if he didn’t give concessions to the National Party, he sure as heck must have given some concessions to the Green Party, because we heard the drum-beating rhetoric from Golriz Ghahraman. I want to find the quotes that she gave. She was pretty unambiguous about the Green Party’s—not just hers—disdain for this bill: “unnecessary, overkill, a dog whistle”. So who’s dog-whistling now, Ms Ghahraman, and what did the Green Party get in return for their support for this bill at first reading?

I don’t know that we’re going to get the answer to that until perhaps the committee of the whole House, and that’s not far away. But here’s what we know. We start with a bill that we think is half safe. The Minister will not look at—he won’t even entertain the National Party’s sensible suggestions. So, therefore, what we must be seeing is a bill that is going to become even less safe. So if he’s not going to support the National Party’s proposals and he will support whatever the Green Party has secured in return for their votes, we are going to be less safe, not more safe.

It won’t be belts and braces from the Greens. It will be a relaxation of the control order process, and indeed the media have already been reporting that there are going to be some concessions in respect of the ability of legal counsel to see certain things. What worries me about that is that it’s really hard to slice certain information relative to a potential control order recipient from other information that is often received in confidence by our five country partners.

I ask this: if the Minister is going to concede those things or matters similar to them, has he spoken to our Five Eyes partners about their view, about the willingness that they have to continue to share security information? Because I think that makes this country less safe. And the very intention of this bill is going to be undermined by the concessions the Minister will inevitably have had to have made to the Green Party, and that will make us all less safe, less well-off, less informed, and that’s why we cannot support it at first reading.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill. I do so with a degree of exasperation, actually, listening across the House. It is important. This is a national security issue and it is important in these times that our two biggest political parties can work together for the benefit of New Zealanders. There is a pressing issue around terrorists that may wish to come back to this land, and he does have rights as a citizen. We are in a no-man’s land and we do need to address this.

But what am I hearing? I’m hearing that the National Party seem to be more intent on refighting the 2017 election than actually addressing the issues with the bill and the clear and present danger that we are facing. This is not the time for a fit of political pique; this is time for focused minds and to act in the best interests of the New Zealand people—and New Zealand First will be doing just that. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in opposition to the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill, a bill that was introduced as a fairly weak bill, and a Minister who will not listen to sensible suggestions to strengthen it, and thereby keep New Zealanders safer, but instead will negotiate with a party which was always in opposition to it, and he could only have got their agreement by promising to weaken it further.

Yes, they referred to this as a dog whistle of a bill and that they were doubling down on oppression and foreign nations using the term of “terrorist” to deal with dissidents. Oh no, they weren’t going to have a bar of this bill, but now they will. So Andrew Little, when faced with the possibility of a negotiation with National to deliver a stronger bill to the House—one that would keep New Zealanders safer—realising, I think, that National had shown with its sensible amendments that they could do a better job than him with this bill. So rather than agree to those changes and therefore show the people of New Zealand that National is better at this than he is, he has instead chosen to compromise the safety of all New Zealanders by agreeing to weaken it just to get some votes. Well, that’s absolutely shameful and he would do well to tell New Zealand just what he has agreed to so they don’t have to wait a few weeks for this highly truncated select committee process to get to the committee of the whole House, when we might see just to what extent he has sold the safety of his countrymen and countrywomen down the river.

He could tell us all now, but what we do know with great certainty is that a weak bill will be weakened even further. How can it possibly be to the benefit of New Zealanders? The sensible things that we were looking at were things like increasing the age of eligibility to include people as young as 14. Why would we do that? Well, evidence has shown, just across the Ditch, a case of a radicalised teenager, radicalised at 15. Now, 14 doesn’t mean mandatory. In fact, the bill, in its provisions, itself, doesn’t mean that everyone who may have been overseas, may have been suspected, or that there may even be somewhat strong evidence of having been involved in terrorism will necessarily have a control order placed upon them. But it would give the ability for courts to deal with those whom they hold could well have those sorts of views and who might undertake such actions in New Zealand or might seek to expound those sorts of ideas and to radicalise others.

We sought to increase the maximum duration of the control orders. Instead of capping them at a hard limit of six years, where no one can know how long it might take to address the issues that these returning terrorists will present—and Mark Taylor, the example that has been used. He’s been radicalised longer than the control order can possibly take effect under this bill. The other thing I’d note on that, which is part of its base weakness, is that not only can these people who are going to be subject to control orders only be electronically monitored if they agree to it, and that is bizarre, but they can’t be made to undertake any form of rehabilitation programme. They have to agree to that as well, which is utterly bizarre as well. That is also limited to the duration of six years. So we’ve proposed, instead, that the control order would be in place for two years, but could be renewed each two years with no limit on the number of renewals.

Perhaps Mr Little and his colleagues simply don’t have enough faith in the New Zealand judiciary to make proper decisions and judgments in these areas. Perhaps it’s this side, the National Party, that has more faith in our judiciary, indeed. We would suggest, though, instead of a small financial penalty, it would be better to increase the term of imprisonment to five years for those who fail to meet the conditions of their control order. That would be a more fit and proper response to someone who only has a control order because of acts most likely overseas which are abhorrent to us all anyway. That would be a far better way of addressing their failure to comply with the law back in New Zealand.

On that point, actually, we also suggested that while it might be a small chance, it is worthwhile that the provisions could be used for those convicted of a terrorist offence in New Zealand. A small but still somewhat very relevant point is the ability for police to actually detain returnees so that the elements of the control orders can be put in place—such as fingerprinting, such as electronic monitoring—to actually allow them to place the person into the control order regime rather than just let them across the border and hope they can track them down later. Those sorts of sensible things would strengthen the bill. It would give New Zealanders confidence and faith that the control order would work effectively, along with requiring proper rehabilitation efforts and monitoring of the people subject to the control orders. The public would feel safe.

I don’t believe they’re going to feel safe at all in this bill as it’s currently written—and let’s bear in mind that this isn’t going to be its final version, because the Minister has sold something out to the Greens. We just don’t know what it is yet. We’ll learn. So this bill, even as it stands now, won’t make the public feel safe or safer at all, because there are simply too many areas in it that don’t place the sorts of control that the public might actually expect that a control order might have, particularly a control order which is only subject to someone who has been, effectively, found guilty of terrorist activities, most likely in a foreign nation. So what they’re going to do is allow these people back in. They’re, basically, going to water down the monitoring and requirements on these people as much as they can, because the Green Party just, basically, want to let them in as if they’ve done nothing wrong at all, and try to tell New Zealand that somehow that’s going to keep us safe. It simply isn’t going to do that.

But it’s wonderful—on the speaking list, if it’s accurate, the Greens are going to come up next, and with a bit of luck, they might actually tell us what concessions they’ve twisted out of Andrew Little to suddenly make them vote for this bill. It’ll be very interesting, because if they’ve asked for nothing at all, that’s got an interesting connotation, doesn’t it? Because it was only days ago where their spokesperson was saying that this was a dog whistle of a bill and there wasn’t, basically, a snowflake’s chance in hell that they would actually vote for it. So if they’ve actually changed their mind with no changes, there’s a word for that, one that’s not mentioned in this House, in this Chamber—

💬 Hon David Bennett: Hypocrisy is a word.

Oh, that’s a word. That’s a word all right, Mr Bennett, and it’s a word that might actually be befitting of a group of people that might one day say, “This is a dog whistle of a bill.” and then the next day actually change their mind with no changes to its provisions. Yeah, that sort of an approach might actually accurately describe that sort of behaviour. So it’s going to be very interesting to see.

But at the base of this, we have a bill that was imperfect, if one wants to be generous, to begin with—it was weak to begin with—and a Minister who simply wouldn’t listen to sound, logical reason and sensible amendments to make the bill better, but instead would negotiate with a group that already wanted it to be weaker than it already is, just to get some numbers. The safety of New Zealanders means so little to that Minister and to this Government that they would trade it away for a handful of votes rather than sit down and negotiate a decent bill that would actually keep New Zealanders safe. That is abhorrent in itself.

But we’re only about 12 months away—with a bit of luck, even less—and the people then can have a choice and have their voices heard as to who they believe is in a better place to lead this country. With a bill like this, it certainly ain’t going to be that lot on the other side. We oppose this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill comes to this House in the context of the deadliest act of terror in our nation’s living memory: the mosque attacks on 15 March. It comes in the context of the horrifying rise of extremism around the globe, including the likes of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), as well as white nationalist extremism. It comes in the context of the now eight-year Syrian war, where we know New Zealanders travelled to support terrorism and violence, harming countless victims. We know that the United Nations and the communities over there have asked the nations who have supplied foreign fighters to bring them home to see justice. They don’t have the facility to do that, and, frankly, they don’t feel safe to do it. So we do have a responsibility. But this bill also comes to this House in the context of decades of harmful, prejudice-filled rhetoric of the war on terror, trumpeted by the likes of George Bush and Tony Blair to justify their war crimes, their unlawful wars, that have riled up, villainised, the people of that region; fearmongering to justify cuts to human rights—the kind of prejudice that led to the 15 March attack. From Guantanamo Bay to Trump’s so-called Muslim ban, lawmaking that was led by fear and bigotry has never made anyone more safe. So we, the Green Party, take this seriously. We’ve got to get it right.

Now, in that broad context, turning to this bill, it would allow the court to impose civil orders on persons over the age of 18 who have travelled overseas to support or participate in what—there is a real risk—were acts of terror or terrorist-related activities; to be brought under the orders. This is assessed on a balance of probabilities. We are not talking about anyone who is charged under our Terrorism Suppression Act, which does have extraterritorial jurisdiction, by the way. So this is separate from that. This is a separate kind of accused person. There’s a lower threshold, there’s less evidence, and there’s less risk, but we do want to do something about it.

The order, if granted by the court, enables active supervision and monitoring of the returnee. There’s a range of conditions. That assessment will be made based on police information that they’ve obtained in correspondence with foreign agencies and groups where the person has gone, allegedly to partake in activities related to terrorism. It could include monitoring and supervision or surveillance of their electronic devices. It could include bans from owning firearms. It could include bans from association and communication with certain groups, if that is related to the risk of terror. And it would include, if the court saw fit, the requirement that the person be assessed for mental health purposes and also assessed so that they could have a de-radicalisation plan made for them. The orders would be individualised in each case.

But we know that the infringement of civil liberties in any case is serious. Although right now the focus is on Mark Taylor, the likes of Mark Taylor—he being a self-confessed supporter of ISIS who travelled to the Middle East to support that terrorist group. He’s made statements already, talking about the kind of support he gave that harmed people, that helped ISIS. We know that. But this bill wouldn’t only apply to Mark Taylor. We’re not just making a law for one man. So we do have to get it right so that there are not unforeseen consequences for people that go beyond that. We want to catch people who are at risk of harming New Zealand. That law will have to aim to do that, because it’s only justifiable to limit civil liberties based on an actual risk of harm. We’re not going to run Guantanamo Bay, despite what the National Party might want.

That is why the Green Party has a long history of standing up against so-called anti-terrorism laws that do nothing but make politicians look tough on crime. We’re going to focus on safety, and we’re going to do that by making sure the processes are fair and robust. We had a press release out today that outlined the changes we got. We got all the changes that we’d asked for. I’m really sorry that the National Party seems to be quoting from two- or three-day-old newspaper clippings or whatever it was. Sorry. So I’ll outline the press release. It was also, you know, all over the media.

💬 Hon Clare Curran: They’ve always been a bit behind.

A bit behind is, in fact, a euphemism for archaic—embarrassingly archaic, over there. We will support law that upholds the standards of due process that New Zealanders expect from their lawmakers and institutions. So we will support law that applies our standards of terrorism. That’s why we have only agreed to this bill with that change intact. We will not import the definitions of “terror” from jurisdictions where feminism is considered an act of terror, which it might be where I’m from, in Iran. We’re not going to persecute the rainbow community, who are seen as being political dissidents, and thereby terrorists, elsewhere in the world. We are not going to persecute the likes of Ahmed Zaoui, and we know that that law in New Zealand did that. We held an Opposition party MP from Algeria without charge or trial based on secret, classified information for two years. New Zealand is not that nation. New Zealanders expect better. So the change we’ve got is that the definition of “terror” under New Zealand law will apply. I don’t know who would argue with that.

The next change that we have is the highest standard of procedural fairness in our law to date when it comes to the use of classified information that’s kept secret from the accused anywhere in our system. It’s a change that the Law Commission recommended; it’s international best practice. We agree with the experts on this one. That change is that if secret information is to be used under this legislation, it will first be determined by a judge that it would, in fact, cause harm to the safety of individuals or be a serious national security threat if it were disclosed to the accused, and, even in that case, a special advocate who has the correct security clearance will have access to it so that they can further the interests of the defence, so that we know that that information is, in fact, relevant—for example, that’s it’s reliant.

Why would you want information involved in a case that’s not relevant or reliant? It’s so hard to know, but we don’t want that. The courts don’t want that. The Law Commission doesn’t want that, and we agree. We agree that this law should only catch people who are, in fact, a threat of terror to our country. We have agreed that we will have the right due process standards. We will have the correct definition, and, in doing that—in getting our bottom lines—we also, through happy coincidence, will stop the archaic, rights-abusing changes that the National Party wanted to impose: indefinite application, holding children. No, we’re not going down the route of Guantanamo Bay. We are not going down that route—we are not going down that route.

We are not going to support changes—[Interruption]—proposed by people who are yelling, “They have no rights.”, like Mr Bennett over there, yelling, “They don’t have rights.” That’s what we’re dealing with here; that’s what we’ve stopped, and we’re proud of that. We are going to work hard through the select committee process to make changes—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I can hardly hear.

—to this bill to make it fairer as we go through, but we have our bottom lines. We’re going to make sure that the standards are even fairer, the processes are even fairer. That’s what New Zealand would expect of the Green Party in Government. Thank you.

During that extraordinary speech, I’ve been watching the Minister in charge of the bill, Andrew Little, and he spent the whole time with his head down, because I can only assume that he is sitting there thinking, “Oh my lord, this bill is going to get even weaker.” We are suddenly being treated to a lecture on all sorts of extraneous matters which are not covered in this bill, and told instead that what we’re going to have is further changes made in select committee to weaken it down. Well, I respect the rights of all people, but this is not a bill about trampling on the rights of the rainbow community, of feminists, or anybody else. Make no mistake this is a bill about preventing terrorism from hitting our shores. This is a bill about preventing some of the most dangerous people on the planet from undermining our safety and our public security.

Previous National Party speakers in the debate this afternoon have made the point already that this is a very weak response from a Government to very serious and worrying security issues. I am hugely disappointed that the Labour and the New Zealand First parties have placed greater priority on watering down this measure in order to appease their Green Party colleagues than working with the National Party, who have been willing to work in good faith because we recognise how serious this issue is on such an important aspect our country’s security and counter-terrorism measures, which should be designed to strengthen the bill in ways that I have no doubt would find favour with an overwhelming number of New Zealanders.

Well, assuming this bill passes its first reading in about 20 minutes or so—because the Government has the numbers—National members, of course, will still try to work with other parties to improve the bill in the interests of public safety and peace of mind for all law-abiding New Zealanders. But, boy, we have now got a real understanding of just what a challenge that will be. So I say to everybody who is listening to this debate: please make your submissions. Make your voice heard to the committee. Unfortunately, it’s been indicated that you’re going to have very little time to do that, and that’s a travesty in itself, but please ensure that you stiffen the Government’s intentions—give them some real backbone to ensure that we have a measure that is fit for purpose at the end of this process.

The Minister, in his opening speech, made demonstrably false and outrageous claims about National’s approach to negotiations on this bill. The fact of the matter is that National considered and discussed the proposed bill in good faith and with genuine suggestions to strengthen and improve the bill. It is the Minister and his Government who were tricky and disingenuous. His words were: engaging in “blatant party politicking”. Well, that’s pot calling the kettle black, because as the Minister alleged, he had to deal with the open hostility of the Green Party—his own support party colleagues initially—in order to get his initial proposals considered, and he’s had to water them down. In other words, he has capitulated to bring the Green Party on board. Well, what a shame it is that he would do that on such an important measure, when he could have worked with the largest party in the Parliament—the Opposition National Party—and got a measure that would be enduring and that would enjoy widespread support in our country.

So let me repeat that National wanted to be able to support this bill at this first reading, and we still want to take a constructive approach to the select committee’s deliberations, and the consideration of submissions, but the Minister was unwilling to reciprocate, and instead turned his guns on the Opposition—the largest party in the Parliament—and confirmed that he would adopt a shoddy process and press ahead with a weak bill that will not achieve its purpose.

Mr Little, in his typically belligerent fashion, interjected while my colleague the Hon Amy Adams was leading off for the National Party in this debate, that he had asked National to come up with some alternative proposals and that we hadn’t done so. That was his interjection. Well, how patently dishonest. How transparently false that is. He knows the changes that National is seeking, our leader told him what they were, and they’re a matter of public record.

So let me repeat them for him and for those who are listening. The changes that National needs to see included in this bill in order to be able to support it include lowering the age-limit for control orders to those aged 14 years and over, there is good reason for doing that, I’m sure that will be discussed in detail at the select committee; increasing the maximum duration of control orders; removing the financial penalty entirely, and increasing the term of imprisonment to five years; including a new provision to ensure that control orders will capture those convicted of a terrorist offence in New Zealand—well, who on earth wouldn’t want to do that?—including a new provision to allow police to detain returnees, if necessary, to comply with the requirements of a control order. Well, yes, of course those are tougher measures, because we believe that this bill needs to be strengthened.

The Minister knew all of that, his colleagues knew all of that despite the fact that they’ve stood up in this debate today and alleged that National wouldn’t cooperate and that National brought nothing to the table. Well, National did; he knows it, his allegations are utterly false—

💬 Greg O’Connor: Bought a press release, all they’ve ever done—they bought a press release.

To pretend that they’ve never been told is extraordinary—and for Mr O’Connor to keep interjecting in that inane fashion shows that he is also dancing on the head of a pin, trying to defend the indefensible here. They’re not extreme or out of line, our proposals, they are exactly what we see in many of our main international partners and their regimes, and it is absolutely appropriate that we should be on the same page as them.

As my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse said, the Government is showing contempt for Parliament and the public by proposing, yet again, a very short time for submissions to be made and heard and for the select committee to do its business—

💬 Greg O’Connor: Contempt for cheap politics, that’s what we’re showing.

Well, Mr O’Connor, that’s not cheap politics; that’s contempt of Parliament. That is absolutely insulting to New Zealanders. That is an appalling thing to do—that is an appalling thing to do.

💬 Greg O’Connor: Cheap and shallow.

Mr O’Connor, when the National Party was in Government—that member wasn’t here at the time—we took very seriously our responsibilities regarding national security, and we always worked with the Labour Opposition to ensure that we could have as bipartisan approach as possible, because the onus is on all of us as lawmakers—not just on the Government; on all of us, particularly when we’re facing matters such as counter-terrorism—to be as strong and as united as we can be, because our primary responsibility is to ensure the safety of New Zealanders.

The threat that is posed by foreign fighters who have left New Zealand to fight alongside terrorist organisations is very real. We don’t have all of the information, but what we do have tells us that we must be utterly vigilant and utterly prepared to deal with them, particularly should they ever return to this country.

Let me just turn quickly to some of the speeches we’ve heard from the minor parties. Well, the speech from the New Zealand First representative frankly was a disgrace. Its only good feature was that it lasted less than two minutes, because he had nothing to say other than attacking the National Party. I can only imagine the discussion that must have taken place in a caucus with a party with the name “New Zealand First” that used to proclaim that they put New Zealanders first, and it used to claim that they were strong on law and order and security measures. Well, here they’ve just rolled over completely, and their supporters, I think, will be appalled. That is a disgrace. His speech was a disgrace.

But what of the next party? We heard from Ms Ghahraman. In her first minute, I thought, “Oh, well, this is interesting.” She reminded us of the horror of 15 March—of course, that’s absolutely relevant to today’s discussion, so I commend her for doing that, and she did mention the threat of foreign fighters and terrorists. So in her first minute, she certainly did a lot better than the New Zealand First Party.

But then she turned her fire on our allies. That is when suddenly she made the most outrageous comment, attacking our key security partners. Well, even people in the Green Party must realise that a tiny country like New Zealand needs its allies, needs its key security partners, and is grateful to them. It doesn’t mean that we accept all of their views on every matter, but it does mean that we work cooperatively in good faith with them. Well, clearly, the Green Party have no track for this measure.

We were then treated to her lecture on civil liberties, where she mentioned Mark Taylor in the same sentence as civil liberties. Well, I’m sorry, I don’t think there are many New Zealanders who are more upset about Mark Taylor’s civil liberties this afternoon than they are about the important measures that we should be implementing to protect the safety of all New Zealanders. So I am horrified to think that the Green Party will take that attitude into the select committee’s work, and I can only hope that they get a reality check before they do.

I call Ginny Andersen—five minutes.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’d like to briefly say that national security is not an issue for politics, and it’s a sad day when we see the Opposition playing games with the safety and security of New Zealanders.

I have one question: what was done in nine years to develop a national strategy of security or engagement with communities? Zero—nothing was done. All we’ve seen is games being played. National was left out because they were playing politics, now they’re grumpy that they’ve been left on their own—and that’s the truth of it. This is a bill about protecting the national security of New Zealanders, and it’s incredibly sad that they don’t have the gumption or the wider view to be able to support it. They are answerable to the citizens of New Zealand as to why they refuse to vote for it.

I commend this bill to the House.

💬 Simon O’Connor: The gross incompetence of what this—

Are you seeking the call?

💬 Simon O’Connor: Oh yeah, sorry. Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Simon O’Connor—five minutes.

Jolly good. The gross incompetence of the Government has just been illustrated by the person who’s resumed her seat, Ginny Andersen; thinks it’s a joke, has actually spent most of the time—the cameras don’t focus—laughing. If we’re talking about the national security of the Realm, one would actually expect the people to talk about the national security of the Realm. In fact, as I say, the member who just resumed her seat just played politics, ironically, if not using the H word, of course, paradoxically.

It is an incredibly serious issue that we are dealing with here. We are talking about terrorists who are New Zealanders who have gone overseas, primarily into jihadist activities. I want to be clear that there are many forms of terrorism, but the primary one at the moment is jihadism. There’s a certain irony that the Green Party member who spoke was trying to think of others who have—well, is it feminist, Marxist, or other views? To equate that with terrorism is offensive to those groups. It’s also offensive because, actually, the people we are trying to deal with through this piece of legislation are jihadists who have killed the Christians in their tens of thousands, who have thrown the LGBTI community off buildings, and who have burnt alive Syrian soldiers. These are the people that we’re trying to deal with—and the Greens are laughing because, actually, they don’t particularly care. They don’t particularly care.

They are the people who have gone into mosques and they are the people who have gone into synagogues and killed people. These are the terrorists that we are talking about, and I think it’s unfortunate that we get stuck on one person in particular who is coming back, because the importance of this law is to make sure that we are ready for the eventualities that come.

I am disappointed that we on this side of the House have not been able to come to agreement with the Labour Party at this point, and doubly disappointed that the Greens are supporting it, because it’s indicative of weakness. We heard it from the Greens’ contribution that talked about civil liberties—again, without understanding the protections that National’s put forward. But probably the most concerning point is that the Green Party have, over many years, advocated for the removal of our intelligence and security services, with the paradox, of course, being that they would be the first to complain if any of their particular rights or if they were to ever be harmed by these people.

Look, National’s been very pragmatic in what it has asked to have changed. We want the law to apply to people under 18. The Greens stereotype that as children—again, scaremongering and stupidity mixed together. We’re not doing that to children, but if the Green Party understood, we have 14-, 15-, 16-, and 17-year-old terrorists in other jurisdictions who have been arrested. This bill will not cover it. This bill has a fine for non-compliance. We’re dealing with terrorists. They are zealots. You don’t tend to slap a fine on them; you need to lock them up.

There’s also questions which are being raised—oh well, I would certainly raise them—that the Green Party’s amendments, as I understand them, are basically going to potentially compromise our own intelligence services by having to expose operations and information in order not to keep New Zealanders safe, but to assuage the paranoia of the Greens, who, I will put on record, have never understood a human right properly in their lives.

It’s coming to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I chair that. We are being put under enormous pressure, I suspect, to do our duty. I think that’s unfortunate. I will say to the Minister that we will do our best, but we are being put under enormous pressure to deal with this. The time frames—as have been indicated already in the House—are incredibly, incredibly tight, again, on a matter of national security, and I think even with the time being given to us, it is going to be incredibly, incredibly difficult. I, for one, do not wish to be the chair of a committee that denies people the right to speak. We’re already seeing that with the likes of the Abortion Legislation Committee at the moment, which has limited horrendously the ability of people to speak. I prefer to fall back to what I’ve done in the past in chairing committees, which is to give New Zealanders their opportunity to speak, particularly on matters of this import.

So, really, I look forward, to an extent, for the committee to be able to make this bill the proper security and national security bill that it needs to be, and I implore the Minister and the Government to take on these excellent suggestions of National.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and welcome to the Chair at 10 to 6 on Thursday. Can I just say that I’m actually saddened to be taking a call in this debate, because I have a great respect for the democracy of this country. I have a great respect for this House, and I have a great respect for the normal bipartisan approach to national security, so it has given me no pleasure to have watched this debate over the last couple of hours and to have to state that I too will be voting against this legislation. I do that for a number of reasons, which I now intend to outline.

The first point I make is that this legislation is clearly rushed legislation, and, generally speaking, rushed legislation is bad legislation. We can all surmise why it happens to be on the Order Paper today, and I suspect it’s because of the recent developments in Turkey and in Syria, whereby Turkey has chosen to go into Northern Syria, and that’s the reason it’s before us today. But the issue of these returning terrorists or jihadis has actually been an issue confronting Government for quite some period of time, and I happen to know this region reasonably well.

I was asked by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, about three months ago, to travel to Turkey, where principally we were investigating human rights abuses that were experienced by elected representatives within the Turkish Parliament. Whilst there, we travelled from Ankara down to a city called Diyarbakır. From memory, it was about 100 kilometres north of the border, and you could just sense the different security prevailing in Ankara versus Diyarbakır. Armoured vehicles were around the streets all the time, and whilst I think we were particularly safe, we were able to meet a number of people who told us of the Kurds coming across the border from Northern Syria and recruiting adults, yes, but children. We met the mothers and fathers of children as young as 12 who either voluntarily had been radicalised and taken across the border into Syria by the Kurds or, in some cases, had been kidnapped, and these people were then brainwashed to come back and act as terrorists within Turkey.

Now, I listened to the debate earlier, and it was acknowledged by the Hon Amy Adams and the Hon Michael Woodhouse that the Leader of the Opposition is in the special position of sitting on the Intelligence and Security Committee and therefore is well aware of some of the exposure of previous New Zealanders returning after being radicalised and returning to this country as terrorists. I’ve never sat on that committee. I’ve sat on most committees in this Parliament; I’ve never been there, so I don’t know the numbers that are involved. But we all know of one particular person, Mark Taylor, the “Bumbling Jihadi”, who has received a lot of publicity and, because of the recent situation with Turkey invading Syria, is probably now free from a Syrian jail and could possibly return to New Zealand. Therefore, we have this legislation now before the House, but sadly the process by which it has got here has been nothing short of shambolic.

Now, I listened to the Hon Andrew Little in his first contribution, saying that this is a matter of national security. If it’s a matter of national security, it should be before this House as a bipartisan issue. Why isn’t it? Mr Little, it’s because of your arrogance and it’s because of your belligerence. We all know that coalition Government is difficult—it’s a matter of numbers—but as the Minister in charge of this legislation, he should have had his numbers ready before he put the bill into this House, and he didn’t, because the Greens said they wouldn’t support it. So then he came to National, and National asked for half a dozen changes which we think are rational and could have been incorporated. Mr Little wouldn’t accept those changes, so he went back to the Greens. Whilst we don’t know the full details, we can only surmise that he now has the Greens’ support to get this through the House, because it has been weakened, because this legislation is now weaker than even Mr Little wanted in the first place. So I think it is here before the House, sadly, because a dirty deal has been done.

Then we have the sad situation where we’ve been told, as the legislation is introduced into the House, that it’s going to be rushed through with a report back from the select committee of 3 December. Why does it have to be rushed? Why can’t it go to the select committee and let people have an opportunity to really say their point of view on this legislation?

Why didn’t Mr Little agree to some of the demands—particularly the age one? Why don’t we have a look at Australia, which faces very similar security concerns to New Zealand, and see what they’ve done? Has Mr Little, has any member of the Green Party, and has any New Zealand First member read the recent United Nations report entitled Tackling Terrorists’ Exploitation of Youth? Does any other member of the Government know that 12 percent of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) fighters are less than 18 years of age?

Why does this Government think that a Mark Taylor can come back after fighting for ISIS, being jailed in a Syrian prison, and being released now simply because the Turks have invaded that area—that that man can come back—and suddenly be rewired in six years? Why, again, doesn’t Mr Little look at the Australian legislation, which has but one term for that type of returning jihadi, and that is an unlimited period of time?

Why did the Green Party claim, when the legislation was originally promoted by Mr Little, that it breached the human rights of Mark Taylor? Well, I ask the Green Party: why are Mark Taylor’s human rights greater than my human rights? Why are Mark Taylor’s human rights greater than the 51 people that were massacred on 15 March in Christchurch? The Greens have no answer to that.

While we’ve listened to this debate, can I say the most disappointing—it’s worse than that; the most disgraceful—contribution was from the New Zealand First member Mark Patterson. He stood and within 20 seconds sat down, saying he supported the legislation.

Can I just say to Golriz Ghahraman, I’ve just read the story of a bombing in the Nigerian city of Maiduguri—a bomb that went off when two persons came into a city square wearing bombs—suicide bombs. What age were those two people? They were two girls aged 12. That’s what we’re facing here. We’re facing a situation where this legislation won’t fit the purpose.

If the Hon Andrew Little had only been prepared to be reasonable in negotiation, reasonable in discussion, we could have stuck to the long-held tradition of this Parliament whereby national security is a bipartisan concern and a bipartisan solution. It gives me absolutely no pleasure to be in this House this afternoon saying that National will not vote for this legislation, and I don’t think the fault with that lies with the National Party at all.

It’s an important bill. I commend it to the House.