Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) 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 the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, and 194(1)(b) and (c).

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ve been looking forward to this instruction being given to the House for almost, I think, a week—a week and a bit. I rise in a sort of an awkward position of having two hats on: one as an Opposition MP but also as chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. So I want to put on record immediately why I oppose this. I want to give the House a surety, of course, if this passes—if it is the will of the Parliament—the select committee will do its duty and acknowledge that the Minister of Justice has provided, through this instruction, the time, potentially, or the ability to do so.

Look, I oppose this simply as I believe this is too short—too short a period of time. This instruction, I believe, was meant to be moved a week or so ago. I think it was a lack of competence by the Government to actually have moved the instruction at the right time. As I say, it’s normally done immediately after a bill is read. The bill was read in the House. It was passed, a motion was put, and that was it. This was to go to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, as I say, which I chair, but because the Government was not managing its House duties correctly, they ran out of time to put this instruction, and why that’s particularly important is that the committee has now lost a whole week, in effect, to be able to begin the submission process and to hear from the public.

So, fundamentally, it’s too short. We only have, well, effectively, less than three weeks now on this incredibly important piece of legislation to not only go out to the public, to ask them to submit, and to find the time to listen to their views but then, of course, to sit down with our advisers to make any necessary changes. It would be marvellous to think that we get bills right first time, but all of us in this House, it doesn’t matter if we’re new or old, know that it can take—well, there are always problems, and I have reservations that the way that this bill has already been handled does not look good, to put it very, very simply.

As I say, we’ve already had it bungled, if you will—the fact we have been doing an instruction in its own right. I believe, it is unprecedented to actually have a bill presented to the House and accepted, but the instruction to the committee—

💬 SPEAKER: No, no, I assure the member he’s not correct.

It hasn’t. Oh well, I don’t want to have a privileges complaint put against me then. But we are in this unusual situation where it has been unfortunately handled to date. We already know, as I said, the instruction—this is messed up. We know that there have been disputes around the negotiation of the bill, and why that’s particularly relevant is that we’ve already got a messy bill in its process. I am reluctant that we are only going to be able to deal with this for three weeks.

When the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has previously dealt with issues, in this case around foreign fighters, we had a substantial number of people submit and I expect similar here. We’re obviously going to have the groups that are very interested in human rights that will want to submit. We’re going to have our various officials from the Ministry of Justice and so forth. It’s even possible, unusual as it is—and the committee is going to have to try and find some time—that we might actually want our intelligence services to come in as well. We know there are a number of members of the public and I know there are members on the committee who have actually expressed their interest, again, particularly around the human rights components, and want to be heard.

The concern I have, slightly putting the chair’s hat on, is: how exactly are we going to progress even with all the time available? I know we have a recess week there; that provides us a good opportunity of time. But if we end up as a committee with a substantial number of submissions, how exactly are we’re going to handle that? First and foremost, it is infinitely handleable; committees are very able and willing to be able to do sampling, to deny people being heard, and so forth but also, actually, to do the process rightly and properly and, I suppose, to give confidence to the people of New Zealand that we’ve done this right. Fundamentally, we’re not talking here about a tax bill; we’re talking about the security of the Realm, and that sort of, I suppose, ups the ante, if you will—ups the tension around this piece of legislation.

I will signal, because I’m attempting to be balanced, which might be a change, and that might be misleading the House again, too—I don’t know. But we do have the balance that as it’s something which has to do with the national security of New Zealand, there’s obviously a need to get this done speedily, and I don’t think anyone in this House, myself included, would want to see a situation develop where we had not progressed the law. But the corollary or the flip side to that is we have to get this right, and my concern is that we are going to be enormously under the pump.

Again, I can’t speak for what the committee will formally endorse or decide, but I can see we’re going to be dealing, probably, with less than a week to allow New Zealanders to submit. The committee itself, competent as all the members are, is going to have to process quite a large amount of information from our advisers. Then, as I say, we’re going to have to—and it’s certainly my hope—engage with the public in a way that’s constructive, first and foremost; secondly, enables us to see if there any changes required; and, thirdly—and I think importantly—provides the confidence needed. Then, of course, as you’ll understand, once that’s all been done, we have to make sure we process the changes accordingly.

What’s also complicating things slightly, and, again, it’s quite right and proper what the Minister’s done, and, actually, I thank him for it, is he’s tabled a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—I think it is SOP 397—early, which is great. But that’s now a further piece of consideration that the committee has to be involved with.

So I suppose the long and the short of what we’re saying here is that this is an incredibly important piece of legislation. It is dealing with elements of our national security. There are areas we already know from the first reading, which are highly, highly contentious between different sides of the House. I don’t intend to litigate them here. It’s not appropriate. But one of them’s around the age limit, as in is it high or too low? The other is around fining, as in if someone—a terrorist—coming back to New Zealand breaches the rules, is a fine sufficient? These are substantial issues. They are controversial issues. They’ve been highly emotional. The committee will need to progress through those, and it’s also been well signalled in the debates in the House and some of the initial correspondence that I’ve had as chair that people are following this with a very keen eye on the human rights side. Those are always, very substantive issues.

But suppose I do want to indicate not a lack of faith, for want of a better word, in the ability of the committee to try and do its duty. But this is incredibly, incredibly tight. As a way of wrapping up my contribution, as I say, we’ll do what we can, but because the instruction was not moved on the last sitting day, on the Thursday, we’ve lost a further week. The Minister has not changed the date. It remains 3 December, so we are under the pump. We’ll do our duty, though. I look forward to those members of the public who do submit if, of course, it is the will of the House that this instruction or motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I’m going to pick up where the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has just left off. I’m not going to be as measured as he is in opposing this measure, because I acknowledge the role that he has where he has to balance his position as an Opposition member of Parliament with his role as chair of the committee. So I commend him for that.

But here we go again with this most open and transparent Government ever, apparently, as they were determined to be, showing that they are anything but. In fact, what we have here is a Government that is determined to ride roughshod over parliamentary process and scrutiny on one of the most significant measures that could come before this Parliament. That is a constitutional outrage because, as the chairman of the committee has just pointed out, this is not a minor matter. This is a very serious issue that goes to the heart of New Zealand’s domestic and international security. So there is no doubt at all that the National Party—and, I think, probably our colleague in the ACT Party—are hotly opposed to this ministerially proposed instruction to the committee. While I respect the fact that the chair of the committee has given an undertaking, assuming the Government is able to force its will upon the nation through this instruction, that they will do their level best to meet their obligations and to report back in good faith—and, of course, I do commend that, because we would all want to ensure that the committee does its very best work possible—nevertheless, it needs to be put on record that this is a shambles, it’s incompetent, and it’s utterly unacceptable.

I want to call on the Green Party to remember that they have a proud history while they’ve been in Opposition of opposing measures of this type, and I’m sure that tonight they’re going to want to maintain their integrity by saying—

💬 Andrew Bayly: Are they?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member can’t reflect on parties’ integrity.

I wasn’t sure if you were referring to the colleague beside me, sir.

💬 SPEAKER: I missed his; if he was naughty, he’s lucky—right?

Well, I stand corrected on that. I’m sure that the Green Party will wish to maintain their record in such matters. So I want to reflect and remind them that there is a very well-known maxim that if a job’s worth doing, it’s worth doing well, and so far, typically, this Government seems hell-bent on doing the important jobs as badly as possible.

What could cause greater fear in our communities than the threat of terrorism? I know I can’t get into the substance of the bill—I would like to—but, nevertheless, I can focus on the work, or the task, that this committee is going to be given. Let’s reflect on the fact that, effectively, they have just three sitting weeks, under this particular motion, to complete all their business. As the chair of the committee has pointed out, it is, presumably, going to be tomorrow that the issue will be opened up to the public for submissions. So that is a remarkably short period of time for the committee to receive those submissions, to provide the opportunity for people to be heard—and I have no doubt at all that many will wish to be heard, given the severity of this measure—to receive official advice, to hear from the security agencies, who of course are going to need to be heard, and then to process all of that information and do what select committees can do well, and that is to suggest improvements to the bill. We on this side of the House believe that improvements to this bill are not only desirable, but, frankly, essential. So all of that, and then, as the chair of the committee has pointed out, to have the bill reported back to the House by 3 December? Well, the Government should never have allowed this to happen.

We all know why the bill is being introduced. We all recognise—in particular, in the wake of 15 March in Christchurch—that it is an important issue for the House to address, and, in fact, as has been well articulated, the National Party would like to be able to be supportive of this measure. I can’t go into the reasons why we’re not at the stage, suffice to say that we will work in the select committee, if we’re given the chance to do so, to improve the bill.

I think it is going to be a matter of grave concern to the public that, effectively, it is the Green Party who have influenced the way in which this bill is now being handled, because I am yet to meet a single constituent in Hamilton West or any New Zealander in other parts of the country who wants the Greens to be the dominant players in shaping our terrorism legislation. It’s outside of the scope, I realise, to discuss what they are putting on the table, but it is absolutely—

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, the member has drifted.

Yes, but sir, the point I’m making is that it is absolutely in scope to indicate concern on behalf of the public about the way in which their contribution will influence the work of the committee.

Our security agencies must be heard in this matter. They need to have the time to prepare the advice that the committee needs to hear. This proposal demonstrates extraordinary arrogance and incompetence, as I’ve said, in equal measure, and especially from this Minister, Minister Little, who should be much better than this. The committee will need to be able to reflect on the changes that he proposed between the initial concept of the bill that he sold to the public and those that ultimately made it into the House for the debate in its first reading, just the Thursday before last. I can strongly argue for the public to have their chance to consider what happened to cause those changes and to submit on those proposed changes as well. This truncated process, of course, will constrain their opportunities to do that, it will compromise the committee’s ability to hear evidence on their merit, and it will severely curtail their opportunity to consider making changes or recommending changes that could make for a much better bill.

Select committees are a vital part of our democratic process, and any member who has been here will know that at their best, select committees can make significant recommendations and improvements to bills. Governments have often commented on the fact that a better measure has come back as a result of the detailed scrutiny that a select committee can bring. They are often impressive in the way they operate, they’re often collegial, and they’re often willing to consider things that might not, occasionally, in the cut and thrust of debate in this House, seem to be able to be considered. But in the calmer, more measured atmosphere of a select committee, we can see changes being made, and that’s the appeal that we, in the National Party, are asking for in this process. That is the sort of atmosphere that I know that the chair of the committee will want to preside over, and that I know, having been formerly the deputy chair of that particular select committee, they often succeed in achieving. But the truncated nature of this process will put them under unreasonable pressure. Select committees are not a Government’s rubber stamp, yet, in this case, that’s exactly how they’re being asked to perform. They’re not a “nice-to-have” feature of Parliament; select committees are a vital feature of lawmaking. They are an important part of an Opposition’s ability to hold a Government to account—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will now come back to the motion, please.

Well, sir, we are opposing this motion because it’s vital to get this legislation right, and what we are saying is that a truncated process of this type will compromise the select committee’s ability to do that. We’re not talking about a minor measure; we are talking about an imminent threat to New Zealand’s national security. I can’t go into the actual circumstances that have led to it, but the very fact that the committee will be dealing with something of that severity indicates why we must get it wrong, or get it right, sorry—absolutely get it right.

So I do hope we’re going to hear not only from the Green Party—who, as I say, have a strong record of opposing such measures—but also the New Zealand First Party, because I would be very interested to know how they feel about the fact that a bill that is now going to a select committee is different from the one that they were asked to consider and support at the outset, and what their contribution to the work of the select committee will be. Are they going to feel constrained or compromised in their ability to influence changes to this bill? I see Mr Ball has been shaking his head. I hope he’s going to take a call to stand up and explain his body language, because they’re the party who hold the balance of power in this Government, and this is an issue where the party that holds the balance of power needs to stand up and be accountable to the public.

💬 Simon O’Connor: Put New Zealand first.

Put New Zealanders first, as the chair of the committee has said. So I appeal to all members to oppose this motion. I appeal to them to consider just how significant it is, how much of a constitutional outrage it is, how important it is for the public to be able to be heard and for the security agencies to be able to do their job, and I do hope that they will think again and not put this committee in such an impossible position.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The motion that the Minister has put forward—the Minister in charge of the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill, that is—would have the select committee considering the bill report back on 3 December. That is in exactly four weeks’ time, and it is not practical for New Zealanders to make meaningful submissions and have them considered in a meaningful way.

Let me just spell out what four weeks actually means. If the select committee is to deliberate, then often it needs to meet several times over a number of weeks, go back to officials, get advice, reconsider it, discuss it, deliberate, and then decide how to report back to the House. That in itself can easily take four weeks, but before that happens, members of the public, and I suspect, in this case, those with considerable expertise in the topic, need the time to consider and draft and finalise and send in their submissions. Now, these people don’t have a full-time job waiting for Parliament to ask for submissions so that they can make one. Oftentimes, for people who have other jobs and busy lives, simply going through the process of preparing the submission could take, easily, imaginably, four weeks.

But then there’s the process of actually submitting, and that involves the committee receiving the submissions and arranging to decide which submitters are to be heard in person, and then making arrangements. Often, people will have to make arrangements in order to travel to Wellington, although I am pleased to see that this committee might be able to travel to places other than Wellington. But even so, the scheduling of appearances is something that can easily and conceivably take four weeks. So in order to do this properly, the select committee would need at least three times as much time as it’s been given in order to properly do the job of scrutinising the bill, with well-prepared public input, with the appearances by people in front of a select committee, scheduled with all the logistical requirements that go with people having busy lives. It’s a shame to lose that, in part because of the lack of quality that we may end up with in the bill due to not having a proper submission process, particularly when we’re dealing with an issue such as this that balances the individual freedoms of New Zealanders with the need to sometimes use quite severe coercion in order to keep us safe from thugs and bullies offshore.

It also is a great shame for this institution of Parliament, because one of the things it means to be a New Zealander in a parliamentary democracy is that if you are a voting-age citizen, or permanent resident, for that matter, you have the right to send representatives to Parliament to scrutinise bills, to hold the Crown or the executive to account, and to be heard on specific matters when you are concerned about the actions of the Government and want to give your feedback. All of that is lost with this motion. I know there are parties in this House that will argue over whose fault that is and what it would’ve taken to have had more time. I just simply wish to put on record that there are practicalities in the select committee process, and those practicalities are essential to the functioning of our democracy as New Zealanders currently conceive it.

With that, I’d like to put on record ACT’s opposition to this motion and ask sincerely that the Government reconsider its options. Can it do this law in a way that allows proper consultation? The danger is that through a number of other legislative initiatives over the last two years, which I won’t name, they have slowly eroded the public’s trust in this Parliament and their own belief in the functioning of the democracy that they were born into or chose to come and be a part of, and that is a great shame. That is something the Government, and, in particular Mr Little—who generally has a very good grasp of the constitutional and civil liberty issues that arise—should be sincerely considering and asking themselves: is there a better way to solve this problem that preserves New Zealanders’ right to democracy and enhances the quality of legislation that comes out the other end? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I move, That the question be now put.

No one else went for the call, but—[Interruption] Is anyone else going for the call? Then we’ll just proceed straight to the motion, if that’s all right with members.