Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC 2021) Bill

I move, That the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC 2021) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 1 April 2020.

Members of the House, the APEC 2021 bill seeks agreement to ensure our country’s legislation meets the unique security requirements of hosting the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, otherwise known as APEC, in 2021.

New Zealand joined APEC as a founding member way back in 1989, and being part of this forum has helped boost our prosperity and place in the Asia-Pacific through its focus on economic growth and free trade. You could say our membership has helped New Zealand to speak the language of Asia and, increasingly, the Americas too. We have built strong, trusting relationships, and it’s enabled us to join around the table with other economies facing similar challenges. Being one of 21 members has made it easier for New Zealand businesses to trade and provided a supportive environment for us to pursue key free-trade agreements.

By hosting APEC in 2021, New Zealand will take a leadership role in this region, which is vitally important to us. It’ll be our chance to host world leaders and international media, and show what New Zealand can do and how we can do it. To a great extent, New Zealand’s economic wellbeing and continued prosperity relies on our APEC friends and the work we are doing to advance regional economic integration. As hosts, we take on the responsibility of leading the year’s agenda. It will be our turn to play our part in continuing to strengthen APEC to ensure we successfully address the many challenges we face from the digital economy to inequality, sustainable trade, and so much more.

Many of you will remember when we last hosted APEC in 1999—well, perhaps not some of you; but some of us do remember—with great distinction. We saw two significant diplomatic milestones: the first ever visit of a Chinese President to New Zealand, and only the second ever visit of a sitting US President to our country. Hosting APEC in 2021 is an important chance to take full advantage of the way we host, the way we lead the agenda, how we engage with a key part of the world, and the way we showcase New Zealand and our sustainable approach. Our year of hosting will provide and involve meetings between world leaders, Ministers, senior officials, business leaders, regional youth, and media.

We are expecting up to 20,000 people to take part over the course of the year, including up to 20 world leaders and many Ministers during leaders’ week in November, each with specific security support, from motorcades to foreign protection officers. The number of high-profile people visiting means a need for tailored security approaches. We hosted APEC in 1999, but given the changes to our global security landscape, it’s no exaggeration to say that APEC 2021 is an international event of the size, scale, and complexity that this country has never seen before. Competence in our ability to host a safe and secure APEC is not just important to our own sense of responsibility as hosts; it’s also of paramount importance to leaders and officials from across the region.

Another point to make here is our need to help the general public feel safe and secure throughout our host year. When we last hosted APEC in 1999, the world was a considerably different place. We don’t need to outline the many international new and local incidents that have scarred our world and compelled us to think more stringently about security and the what-ifs. The APEC New Zealand team is an all-of-Government team led by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. They have conducted an analysis of our existing laws and found specific legislation is needed in certain areas to accommodate APEC’s unprecedented size, scale, and complexity. That is what this bill will address.

The APEC 2021 bill is about ensuring that New Zealand police have the resources needed in terms of people and technology. The bill will provide for the temporary security and safety of areas around key meeting locations, as well as motorcades, during the three weeks of the leaders’ event.

It must be emphasised that this legislation is temporary. Many of these aspects will only be in force during the leaders’ event period of three weeks in November 2021. When all APEC meetings have finished and our visitors have left our shores, the legislation will expire and things will be as they were.

I will now outline the six points of this temporary legislation. First, during the leaders’ event period of three weeks, plus periods of required training in 2020 and 2021, a small number of members of the armed forces will be trained and integrated into the New Zealand police force. They will provide specialist support and be given constabulary powers. The legislation enables the Commissioner of Police to draw upon an existing resource and capabilities in New Zealand to bolster our security resourcing. Members of the Defence Force are already highly trained, making this a pragmatic and cost-effective approach. The small number of Defence Force members will be under police control at all times and will be held to the same accountability as New Zealand police officers.

The second point also covers the leaders’ event period plus periods of required training. A number of Government agency staff, private security guards, and Australian police officers may be given limited powers to fulfil their security roles if required. This part of the legislation is designed to free up New Zealand police officers to carry out public-facing roles which require a greater understanding of policing in the New Zealand way, including knowledge of our laws and culture.

The third point covers the leaders’ event period only and provides policing powers to secure APEC venues and enable limited road closures for leaders travelling by motorcade, and some restrictions to movement on water if that is required. This point reflects the security needs of the leaders’ event period and the need to provide safe meeting venues, accommodation, and transportation to visiting leaders and officials for the short duration of their stay. The security areas will be temporary—for example, a few days as meetings take place or a few minutes as a motorcade passes by. The APEC New Zealand team will work closely with regional stakeholders such as the Auckland Council and the general public to ensure the majority of these areas are communicated to the public in advance to minimise disruption. These powers will also include the ability to search a private home if inside a security area, but will also be possible with a judicial warrant or the owner-occupier’s consent.

Point four covers all meetings during APEC year and allows the use of wireless electronic countermeasure technology, subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Police. This technology is generally used to scan an area and then jam, distort, or confuse signals coming from technology used in a threatening way, such as a mobile phone - operated bomb. This technology will be mostly used for very short periods of time, like minutes as a motorcade passes by, and the public will in most cases be notified in advance unless responding to an immediate risk. There is potential for anyone standing next to a motorcade or security area to lose mobile signal for a few seconds or minutes as the motorcade passes, after which everything will return to normal.

The fifth point, which also covers meetings during APEC year, provides increased powers for the NZ Police to respond to risks posed by unmanned aerial vehicles such as drones, and piloted aircraft. Throughout APEC 2021, we will, effectively, have small no-flying areas near some meeting and accommodation venues. These no-fly areas will be shared ahead of time, minimising the chance of public drone-users being affected.

The final point of the APEC 2021 bill: during the leaders’ event period, certain foreign protection officers will be allowed to carry firearms, subject to the approval of the police commissioner and subject to conditions the commissioner may impose, such as the type of weapon and the number that can be brought into New Zealand. These arms will only be carried by highly trained protection officers while protecting a world leader and will be recorded on entry to and exit from New Zealand.

This final point acknowledges that with the complexity of the security operation for leaders’ week and the number of leaders who will be in New Zealand concurrently, some APEC economies will expect to carry certain weapons to ensure the safety of their leader. The APEC 2021 bill manages this, legislating that weapons can only be carried while securing a world leader. Otherwise, they must be securely stored by the New Zealand Police. This legislation creates a controlled process for managing any weapons brought into New Zealand. It needs to be pointed out that this is only to carry weapons to protect certain dignitaries. If the weapons are used, the foreign protection officers will be subject to the New Zealand law.

Members, this legislation has been created following detailed analysis of existing legislation and the unique and unprecedented requirements of hosting APEC. Welcoming 20,000 people to our country, including the leaders of the world’s three largest economies, brings with it significant opportunities but significant security challenges as well. I understand that some of the public may want to assemble and have their voices heard during the APEC year. The right to do so is fundamental to our democracy and not challenged by this legislation.

Can I just conclude by saying this legislation seeks to minimise the impact of APEC 2021 on New Zealanders and to keep them safe. It supports our preparation and ability to respond to any risks that might arise in 2021. It will mean we can welcome and host our guests from APEC economies in a safe and secure environment that works to enhance New Zealand’s prosperity. I want to thank those members of this Parliament who have signalled their support for this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

I thank the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the very detailed outline of what’s in this bill, and appreciate the point he makes that this is a very big deal for New Zealand and one that we can benefit from. So while the bill does for a very short time allow some inconvenience for some New Zealanders, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that this is an opportunity that could see the prosperity of New Zealanders greatly enhanced. In this exercise, with the leaders of the three largest economies in the world potentially coming to New Zealand, we also see a number of countries inside APEC where there have been some tensions. To have all those leaders in New Zealand at a time where they may speak, I think, does the world a great service.

APEC has been one of the most successful international organisations that focuses on economies, for the entire time of its existence, and it is responsible for lifting literally tens of millions of people up the scale as far as the quality of their lives is concerned. New Zealand is a country that enjoys a lifestyle far in advance or in excess of what might be afforded if we were totally an internal economy. We are able as an economy to access the markets of the world, and a lot of that access is facilitated through the sort of organisation that APEC can provide. We are a trading nation, and for us to take this lead, which only happens about once in every 20—in this case, 22—years, is an opportunity that we should not in any way diminish.

I want to just talk for a moment about the roles that various people will have in the special powers that are granted under this Act. Those are there only for the protection largely of New Zealanders. While the Deputy Prime Minister and foreign Minister outlined that there will be some provision for security services for world leaders who are coming here, that is specific to them. Many of the other provisions in here are to try and minimise for New Zealanders, particularly for those living in Auckland, the disruption that inevitably occurs at big events like this.

But the value of those about 21 days—and it won’t be every day that we see that disruption—to the New Zealand economy cannot be underestimated. So rather than relitigating everything that has been now put on the House’s record as being part of this bill, can I just say that we will participate in the select committee process fully. There are a few aspects that will have to be clarified, particularly around the provision of security services held by those who might have a diplomatic clearance and what that would mean for their accountability under New Zealand law. But that’s something a select committee can work through; what the committee of the whole House will be able to work through. I simply want to record that the National Party thinks this is a great opportunity for New Zealand, and we’ll be facilitating the passing of this bill through its process into an Act.

Can I thank the shadow Leader of the House for that contribution and thank the National Party for their support of this piece of legislation. Can I endorse the comments of the Hon Gerry Brownlee about the importance of multilateral institutions. It is a nervous time in the world, and the multilateral institutions that have supported the international rule of law and made for relatively increasing peaceful coexistence in the world since World War II are a precious thing.

The less cohesive nature of those multilateral institutions compared with even 10 years ago is a thing that I think concerns politicians around the world, and certainly politicians from various parties in this Parliament. Those multilateral institutions obviously include the United Nations, APEC, the OECD, and the International Court of Justice. Each of these institutions is precious and has to be nurtured, and every country has to do its bit to support those institutions. We’re lucky in New Zealand that we never have to host the United Nations, because the sort of security arrangements that arise for institutions like that when they host world leaders are every bit as complex as those applying to New Zealand during leaders’ week for APEC.

Institutions that are under siege, if you like, at the moment—“under siege” is perhaps too strong an adjective, but the multilateral institutions that are less settled than they were—include the World Trade Organization as well as some aspects of the United Nations. It’s interesting; I’ve heard the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs talk to me and to Cabinet about the United Nations Security Council and how that’s increasingly blocked these days. We all know that the World Trade Organization is facing some challenges in respect of updating its rules and also keeping the appellate body going.

As a small trading nation which will never be big enough as a country to support internal markets for things like computers and cars, we actually have to sell to the rest of the world the goods and services that we do produce efficiently in order to pay for the things that we import. In order for us to do so on fair terms that maintain the standard of living of New Zealand, we need fair trade access to other countries.

One of the support bodies for the World Trade Organization is APEC. It’s a grouping of countries on the edge of the Pacific—countries that are as varied in their systems of government as is possible, really, in the world: countries like Russia, China, United States, New Zealand and Australia, Japan, South American countries. These countries come together under the APEC banner and try to sort out differences for the benefit of the world.

I was always struck by a statement that was highlighted recently by one of the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials who wrote an article about the Atlantic Charter. The Atlantic Charter was, essentially, agreed between Roosevelt and Churchill during the middle of World War II, who recognised that in order for peaceful relations to continue post - World War II, there had to be fair access for countries to a fair share of resources and the benefit of trade. And so at that time, they set out a course for post - World War II where countries could cooperate in order to have good trading relationships, in order for them to have secure economic places in the world, and to have benefits from good relationships with each other, which they thought would flow through to peaceful relationships outside of trade. And they were right.

APEC is the organisation that we now rely upon to bolster the likes of the World Trade Organization to ensure that. So every 22 years or so, it’s New Zealand’s turn to host it. And when we host it, we actually have to be able to provide for the security of world leaders. Some of those world leaders come from countries that have different circumstances to our own. And they face greater security threats than we have and actually, in some ways, they bring their expectations as to the protections they need to guarantee the safety of their leaders. And that, essentially, is what this APEC bill does. It actually says for this event, we actually have to provide for some changes to our normal laws in order to achieve the protection of those leaders. And I thought that the Minister of Foreign Affairs set that out very well in his speech.

I’m not going to go through all of them and the detail that he did, but we actually do for this short period of time need to have a lot more people in the police. And where do we get them? We can’t train them overnight. It wouldn’t be wise to train them just for a week’s work. So we actually have to bring in some of the armed forces and get them to do some of the policing during that period. We also need to accept help from, on occasions, the private sector, but also from Australia. And so this legislation enables that. Sometimes we need road closures and secure areas. This enables that. Sometimes we actually have to stop—we have to enable the blocking of electronic signals that could be used to activate explosive devices. And I think that’s a pretty small and temporary inconvenience that New Zealanders will have to accept in order to do that as motorcades pass. A fifth point, of course, as he has raised, relates to drones and I don’t think that will prove to be contentious.

But the issue as to some of the security details that these leaders bring with them—being able to bring their own arms—is something that we’ve got to get the balance right on, and this legislation, I think, appropriately attempts to do that by requiring all of those arms to be approved, essentially, by the Commissioner of Police to be registered in and out of the country. And were there—and we hope this never comes to pass—but were those arms ever discharged in the course of those people’s duties, then the circumstances of that will be judged according to New Zealand’s law, and our laws as to self-defence and the like would not change.

So with those comments, I support this bill and I’m interested to hear comments from other speakers.

Mr Speaker, thank you. I’m very pleased to speak in this legislation because, as with other speakers, I believe it is extremely important. I’m not going to take a long period of time because I think it’s very straightforward and it is something that all parties in this House should be able to accept and support—vote for—very quickly. There are many international events around the world that New Zealand takes part in, and we can be very proud of the role that we continue to play in them. But in as far as our ability to host international events or meetings, APEC is one of the larger ones that New Zealand has the ability and will have the opportunity to host. So it is fundamentally important that New Zealand, in taking on the hosting of APEC—that we take our responsibilities seriously and we do absolutely everything we can to make sure it is a resounding success and that all of the guests and visitors that come here are safe and are treated properly, to make sure it’s an absolute success over the 12 months that we will be the hosts, the chair of APEC.

As my colleague the Minister for Trade and Export Growth said, there are many different events that are important to New Zealand, but I would say none more so than the trade discussions that the trade Minister will chair and host as we move forward. Indeed, it was the APEC meetings in Vietnam some years ago where New Zealand was able to work with other Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) countries to stitch together the deal that became the revised TPP that New Zealand exporters are now benefiting from. And if not for APEC, it may well have been very difficult for those other countries to come together, for New Zealand to play a role along with Japan and Australia, who showed great leadership for there to be a trade deal that is important to New Zealand.

So in taking our responsibility seriously, it is the case that we need to make sure the rules that are in place are such that we can keep these visitors safe, that we can make sure they can, you know, move around the city and can ensure that in doing so, the tools that the New Zealand services will need—may require—will be there.

I’ve got to say that I am deeply disappointed that the Green Party have said they won’t be voting for this. And I’m a bit surprised, because this legislation has been in place previously in New Zealand and is very infrequently used. But in the case it would have to be used, we need to make sure, actually, that we are able to meet these responsibilities. I am quite surprised that the Green Party are not supporting this legislation, yet the terrorism bill that was voted on in Parliament just a week or two before, they gave the Government the votes that were needed to ensure, I suppose, that New Zealand is safe from terrorists. So I don’t know why it is that they have voted for the terrorism legislation but in this case, they won’t support this.

One of the challenges we’ve got—and I want to give an example of why this is so very, very important. In the terrorism legislation, National took a position that, actually, when a New Zealand citizen arrives at the border, if they are deemed to be a terrorist, we think that under certain circumstances the police and others should be able to hold them for 72 hours. So in the case of the legislation that is before us today for APEC, if a terrorist, a known terrorist from overseas, came to New Zealand, they could be detained at the border so that our visitors and all New Zealanders are safe. If that person was a New Zealand citizen with a passport, unless the Greens do actually what’s proper, in giving Government support to get the terrorism legislation through, that New Zealander who turns up at the border, who has been a terrorist overseas, would not be able to be held for 72 hours and that means our visitors may not be safe.

The point I’m making is there is a conflict in the two pieces of legislation and I think that the Greens should make sure that the terrorism legislation that they are supporting is fixed and they should be voting for this as well. This is not weighty legislation. It’s not something that’s going to harm the freedom of New Zealanders. It’s going to make sure that they and our visitors are safe. And that’s very much the reason that National is supporting it and joining the Government and other parties in doing so. Thank you.

I’m happy to make a short contribution to this bill. I think the Deputy Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, has outlined eloquently the purpose of this particular bill. All I’d want to add, though, is I was privileged a couple of months back, as part of the Prime Minister’s delegation, to attend the United Nations General Assembly, and being that was my first time, I took a lot of videos of what was happening.

I did ask my companion just to video when one of the world leaders went past and we were all forced to stop. We got to the 14th vehicle in his motorcade and his hand was tired from videoing it, but there were still several more cars to come. When I made inquiries about, you know, what determines how many security officers and motorcades, I suppose the officials in charge of this determine the profiles of each individual world leader. For our leader, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, we had a couple of security people who accompanied her and she preferred to walk rather than travel in the car, which probably caused a lot of alarm and anxiousness with the security guys. But what I witnessed there, at the UN General Assembly, was that those leaders would not turn up to the United Nations if the security was not guaranteed for them. Therefore, yes, whilst people might feel a little bit nervous about this, we need to pass this legislation in order to provide security and support for a safe and secure APEC meeting when the period occurs.

We, as a nation, will host APEC in 2021, but our hosting activities will begin from December 2020 until November 2021, with meetings involving senior officials and Ministers expected to be in the vicinity of 20,000 people over that period. The leaders’ week will take place from 8 November to 14 November in 2021 and will involve about 20 world leaders and Ministers’ officials, business people, youth representatives, and media people.

I think the Deputy Prime Minister underscored the fact that this is temporary legislation. It’s for the purposes of providing a secure and safe APEC conference during that period, and the legislation will expire at the end of that.

There are benefits, and I think—for one—as a small country, we are very much dependent on working at a multilateral level, and these institutions allow us to play a role that often is not appreciated by our general public in New Zealand. But we have a role to play in the international arena. We have a role to play in the manner that we conduct ourselves. We are regarded as one of the nations that are generally free of corruption. That is something to be valued. That is something to uphold.

This is also the nation where Māori language and culture is—the only nation you’d find that. That tikanga—or that kaupapa, as my Māori Ministers often say—is fundamental to the way that we conduct ourselves and host other people. So I think it is a significant organisation. We will get the chance to lead and chair many of these meetings; therefore, we have the opportunity to showcase who we are as a people, who we are as a nation, and how we prefer to conduct our business not only throughout New Zealand, around the Pacific region, but throughout the world.

So I’m really just saying and encouraging all of our members in the House that I think we do have a responsibility in order to fulfil our obligations as a host. We revert to—what is the Māori terminology—manaakitanga to be able to host our people coming through: 21 leaders, world leaders.

When we hosted in 1999, for the first time, where the President of China visited, I think that contributed to us having the first free-trade agreement with China. That’s now also being renewed. So I think this is important. I underscore what the Deputy Prime Minister said: this is temporary legislation; it will expire at the end of the APEC meeting. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, we are definitely going to support this legislation. It is important. It’s our one big chance as a country. It’s genuinely on the world stage. Of course, that provides a huge opportunity for us, but it also provides a fair bit of risk if something was to go wrong. If something did go wrong, we could potentially suffer reputational risk. We’re a country that relies heavily on tourism, and, if we were seen to be a country that couldn’t manage threats and risks, then it could have a massive negative impact in an important sector to us as well.

I just want to support the comments from the earlier speakers to say that I remember back in 1999—the last time we hosted APEC. I was a serving police officer then. I remember the major drain on resources for us to try and police and secure APEC in 1999. I think that it’s a sensible and a pragmatic idea to give the Commissioner of Police the ability to be able to access and work with our New Zealand defence forces. Our New Zealand defence forces are the best in the world, and I have absolute—the highest level of—confidence that, having them supporting our police in a civilian environment, they will not only conduct themselves professionally but also add a lot to, and a significant contribution to, the overall security profile that we’re going to have to provide.

I also think that, normally, I would be against allowing foreign diplomatic service officers to carry weapons in the country—only because of the complex legal issues that would arise if they had to use their weapon and if there was an incident in this country. But I think, in a case like this, when we’ve got world leaders coming here, I think, again, it’s another very good pragmatic decision to allow the commissioner to have the flexibility to authorise the use of those or the ability for those diplomatic officers to be able to actually provide the level of protection that they want to be able to provide for their heads of States, bearing in mind that they are managing their own risks and they’ll be aware of risks and threats that we’re not aware of. So I think that was also another very good pragmatic decision.

The only thing that I would say—and I would appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister on this—is at the moment the House is dealing with a bill, the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill. This bill is designed to be able to pick up someone on our border that is returning from overseas after having been involved in or supporting some type of terror activity. There is a massive hole that you could drive a truck through currently on that bill. The reason why it’s being raised is because it does relate directly to this. The hole is, quite simply, this: we could have someone arrive on our border that’s been involved in that type of activity and our law enforcement agencies—whether it be Customs or Police—don’t have the ability to hold that person or detain that person for more than four hours. To have a control order put in place, even a temporary one, it has to go through a High Court procedure. That does not give them enough time. So we’ve got the insidious situation where we could have someone arrive on our border and four hours later walk out into the general population.

So I’d appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister: support us in the fact that we’re trying to cover off these gaps. We will be introducing, if we can’t get the legislation through or the changes made in the select committee, a Supplementary Order Paper to this House to ensure that our police can actually detain that person for up to 72 hours, in which time the High Court can get a control order in place.

But, in principle, we’re very happy to stand and support this bill and recommend it to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In August last year, the city of Auckland—my home—announced and welcomed confirmation that we would be hosting the APEC leaders’ week in 2021. What we’ve heard today, repeatedly, is all about the benefits of that APEC summit. We will have world leaders from some of the biggest trading nations from our region come together in New Zealand. All of that is true, and the benefits may well be vast. We are a small nation. We do need trade, and New Zealand should take every opportunity to showcase our nation and to build friendships and to contribute to a multilateral world order and to strengthen the rule of law internationally.

So all of those things stand, but this bill isn’t about the benefits of the APEC summit; this bill is about the imposition of certain security measures that are imported and imposed. They are not New Zealand’s own security standards or policing methods, in fact. We are adopting these new standards while we lower the standards of safety for the rest of the public, the not-so-trade-valuable visitors who may be here, and other New Zealanders. We are lowering the standard of safety and of human rights. For those reasons, the Green Party will oppose this bill.

We see this bill and the measures that it proposes to impose as an overreach. We’re seeing, and we’ve heard repeatedly, that there’ll be expanded powers given to foreign security agents to carry and import firearms that are otherwise restricted in New Zealand. Those are restricted firearms that will be allowed into New Zealand on an ad hoc basis, being carried by people who have not undergone police training or do not have the same culture of regulation as what we have out in our communities.

We see that as an overreach, and we see it, in particular, as unnecessary and counter-productive while New Zealand is itself undergoing reform of gun regulation. It makes no sense to go the other way to the way we have been going in this House and out there in our communities when it comes to regulating gun ownership and gun violence, because we have very recently learnt some lessons about the kinds of devastation that can occur when guns that should be restricted are out there on the streets. We’ve heard again and again today that, should those firearms be used by those foreign agents, New Zealand law will apply—we can charge people with murder or manslaughter, our self-defence laws will apply. But that is cold comfort to any victims that have been killed or injured, or their family or loved ones, because we have allowed the APEC summit to be made secure, so to speak, by way of putting more and more, what should be restricted, firearms out on our streets, being held by foreign agents that we didn’t train, that are not used to interacting in our communities.

What I will note as well, which is alarming any time we resort to armed policing in ordinary community settings, is that we know that overseas and here in Aotearoa policing and security agencies do treat different constituencies differently. We know because a loud and vast movement in the United States—and the US is included in APEC—Black Lives Matters is still fighting to stop the disproportionate harm, the deaths, murders, shall we say, by US police against men, women, and children who are of migrant, of colour, or of black communities. We know that in Hong Kong right now democracy protesters are being brutalised by Chinese-backed security agencies, and we know that right here, in our own nation, Māori and Pasifika communities are far, far more likely to be the victims of use of force by police. So we do have to acknowledge that, when we risk life and limb by arming police or security agencies from anywhere in the world or here, we’re actually risking certain communities more disproportionately than others, and it is terrifying for those communities. So that’s one thing that this bill allows.

As if the risk to life and limb weren’t enough, as if that wasn’t enough to justify opposition to, or changing the types of, security measures that APEC has, obviously, imposed on New Zealand, there are also some serious concerns about human rights and civil liberties that are being impinged by the measures proposed by this bill. So we have, for example, police powers being given temporarily during the summit to restrict freedom of movement in certain roads, certain areas, and certain residential buildings. People living or visiting those areas or those buildings will, and may, be restricted by, again, these armed security officers or police. People may be required to show IDs. People may not be able to access their homes or the areas where they live, work, or need to visit. That’s a power that we’re giving away.

The other thing we’re doing, which is a little bit of an unknown, is we’re allowing electronic so-called countermeasures to be taken, and this, again, is in the name of security. It’s so that we know if electronic devices like phones are going to be used as bombs. Yes, we need to know if something is going to be bombed, but we don’t actually know what these countermeasures are going to be, because they’re going to be imposed by foreign agents. They may well include collecting data about where certain electronic devices are. So these are the privacy rights of ordinary New Zealanders or visitors to this nation during the summit—to have their movements tracked and known, their devices accessed in ways that we are not going to be regulating. The only measure of security included in this bill against abuse of that power is that the foreign agents won’t be allowed to share that information. Well, we know that privacy rights are breached the minute our information is accessed, our movements are tracked, and, again, it is cold comfort to a victim of a breach like that—if they’re being targeted by a Government as a protester, as an activist, or as an ordinary citizen—that that Government has collected their information, tracked their whereabouts, but hasn’t shared it. That’s another power that we’re giving away.

It is concerning that at this moment in global history, where New Zealand stands as a beacon for things like kindness and progressive governance, instead of standing up to these measures, that we know have again and again been imposed by the international elite, we are, instead, bowing down. Instead of standing as an independent voice on the world stage, forging a path, showcasing our ways in terms of human rights, in terms of privacy rights, in terms of non-violence, we are, instead, adopting what has been imposed again and again, placing at risk the safety of our communities and lowering our standards of human rights. So the Green Party won’t be supporting this bill.

Mr Speaker, very pleased to support this bill. Look, I’m disappointed the Greens are not—and my next comments are not directed at Golriz Ghahraman herself, but the logic, or lack of, just being put forward by the Greens opposing this bill is just utter, utter nonsense and completely absurd on two levels. The impression that’s been given is that New Zealand is opening its border to a whole lot of mercenaries—untrained, according to the Green Party—who are coming in to invade New Zealand over the course of a few days, take over the country, deploy themselves with all sorts of weaponry and destroy our country. She also says it’s a disgrace and an undermining of rights. The thing about human rights is they always have to be balanced, and I hope the Green Party would understand that those people coming from overseas—some of whom are constant targets of threats and harassment; in fact, often from socialists and from those on the left—want and need protection. They have a right to their safety.

All this bill is enabling is those highly trained protection specialists who accompany heads of State or heads of Government to be able to protect their charges. It is no different from when a Prime Minister of New Zealand or our head of State travels—that they have their own security detail. There is absolutely no difference, and this bill is just providing that opportunity to make that legal. And one of the points, as we ended up in some, again, absurd situation that, you know, certain particular groups are going to be victimised because a whole series of bodyguards are protecting their charges—again, hard to understand how that would happen. This is all under the control of the New Zealand Police. This is all to be led through the New Zealand Police.

In a press release, the Greens have indicated that New Zealand could do it on its own—again, absolutely absurd. We have amazing security services. We have a wonderful Defence Force, fantastic police officers, but there’s no way we have enough personnel to provide the security required. So what this bill is attempting to do, first and foremost, is engage our defence forces and particularly our special forces to be able to work with police and under police jurisdiction, and, as has been noted, allow the protection officers for those visiting dignitaries to be able to operate under police control.

Look, the bill is coming to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. We look forward to drilling into this a bit further. I think, with any legislation, we do want to look into it more carefully. Gerry Brownlee has noted a small aspect, important, though, between the interplay of diplomatic immunity and making sure that those people are also—well, how would they be treated under New Zealand law if an incident were to happen? One that I’m particularly interested in is that speedy interchange, if you will, if needed, where constabulary powers can be given. Speaking to some of our Defence people and from some previous learnings, some of the processes in play to enable constabulary powers to be given, particularly under an emergency situation, need to be swift. So we’re going to tease that out. I understand, from the Minister indicating, that we’ve, effectively, got four months to sort this out. If anything, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee is showing that it can work under pressure.

This is a good bill. APEC is incredibly important and useful to New Zealand, and if there is one right that we need to emphasise today, it’s the right to safety: the safety of New Zealanders, as an earlier speaker has indicated, but I would say that it’s also the right of those visiting this fine country to be safe, to be able to do their job and represent their country in ours.

This is a split call. I call Ginny Andersen.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be able to speak on the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC 2021) Bill. To a great extent, it goes to the point—and it’s already been mentioned today—how important our APEC friends are to us in order to sustain the ongoing wellbeing and economic development that New Zealand currently sustains. It’s great to see that we have a fantastic opportunity on the global stage to be able to connect and demonstrate our value as a key player within the Pacific region. It does advance us, and it plays well.

It has been a long time since 1999, the last time New Zealand hosted APEC, and the world has significantly changed in that time. In accordance with the changed dynamics in which New Zealand operates in a global context, it’s important that we are adequately equipped to host our friends in our country and to be able to secure them to make sure that we have a safe and a well-run APEC in 2021. This bill does exactly that. It ensures that New Zealand police are adequately equipped to be able to ensure they have the resources they need in terms of both people and technology to give New Zealanders and our visitors safety and security during that time.

The bill provides for temporary security and safety areas around key places and key meetings, as well as for motorcades during the three-week leaders’ event. It’s important to note that this legislation is, in fact, temporary. It provides just for the period of time in which we will be hosting this international event, and many aspects will only be enforced during the leaders’ event. When all APEC meetings are concluded and finished and our visitors have left our shores, this legislation will expire and things will be the way they were. So I think that’s an important point to make.

We’re really lucky to have this opportunity, and it’s good to have a bill that makes sure that we provide accommodation, venues, key sites; that our roads are closed at the appropriate times; that we are securing our maritime areas and managing water areas surrounding hotels or other locations to make sure that the general public have a strong sense of feeling safe within New Zealand, at a time when many eyes internationally will be upon us.

So this legislation, essentially, seeks to minimise the impact of APEC in 2021 on New Zealanders, and it’s great to see support from across the other side of the House. It supports our preparation and also our ability to respond to any risks that may arise in 2021. It also means that we can welcome our guests with a strong sense of confidence that we can provide and be proud of the show that we will host in that time. It means that all those guests from APEC economies will operate in a safe and a secure environment that works to really enhance not only the economic prosperity of our country but also our long-term wellbeing. I commend this bill to the House.

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, it’s a huge event: 21 countries, 21 world leaders, 12 months of a series of events, culminating in the leaders’ week in November in 2021—20,000 people coming to New Zealand participating in that. Rightfully so, the world will be looking at New Zealand and how we handle this event, New Zealand being an original signatory to APEC in 1989 and hosting it in 1999. So many years have passed, and the change in the world scenario has greatly enhanced the need for security arrangements to be correctly set.

The bill seeks to address just that, particularly dealing with security for the visiting world leaders, making sure that the protection they need will be handled well and sufficiently, rightfully placing control over into the hands of the Commissioner of Police, assisted by the New Zealand military, who will be trained and empowered as constables. It seems that all of this is absolutely necessary so that people who will be coming to and watching New Zealand over 2021, over the whole APEC, will see and experience a New Zealand that is, at the world stage, exceeding its abilities and doing so well.

Having in the past been involved in arranging for the visit of two Philippine presidents in New Zealand in 2012, and recently, the times that we spent dealing with security discussions with the accompanying security detail of the presidents were long, long hours, and the diplomacy of the New Zealand police force in having to deal with a foreign security detail was amazing to watch. But that was just one president, and we have 21 world leaders.

The need for security is something that most New Zealanders might find unusual, out of our experiential worlds, but the world leaders that will be coming, where they are experiencing huge threats to themselves in what they do, their protection detail are, to a high degree, tasked with making sure that they’re OK, and that’s what they will bring with them when they come here.

The world has also changed in many ways: wireless technology, and the ease of getting into a transport vehicle and ramming into a crowd has been shown to be very effective in many parts of the world already. So, rightfully so for APEC in New Zealand, focus must be on security, and this bill just does exactly that. We support this bill. Madam Speaker, thank you.

It’s an absolute honour for me to stand today to speak on the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC 2021) Bill. I want to remind the House that in 1999, our leader at the time was a woman, and, again, the world is going to look at us in terms of the leadership of our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern.

💬 Chris Bishop: She won’t be PM then. It’s post-2020.

OK, if you get my dates wrong. But I also want to acknowledge the speech from the Rt Hon Winston Peters, the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In his first two minutes, what stood out for me were the words “[building] strong, trusting relationships” and New Zealand taking leadership in this region, which is vitally important. He spoke about how it will be “our chance to host world leaders and international media, [to] show New Zealand [can do it] and how we can do it.”

I want to also acknowledge the words that the Hon Aupito William Sio spoke about, that it’s inherently just a New Zealand value, and that’s about the value of manaakitanga. The value of manaakitanga is about how the travellers to our shores experience how we host them—experience our hospitality, experience how we care for them as visitors, and experience how we as a people live in this land that we live in in terms of Aotearoa New Zealand.

That also is about the policy objectives of this bill. It is about safety and security. The policy objectives of the bill are about supporting the safe and secure APEC of 2021 events for all world leaders, attendees, and the general public. But that is also about the experience of the traveller reaching our shores, and it’s about the experience of those who are on these shores and how we will host our travellers with manaakitanga. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Well, yet again, the Greens have demonstrated why they are an irresponsible party that can’t be trusted in Government.

APEC is very important to New Zealand, as numerous speakers have noted. We haven’t hosted it since 1999—and it is in 2021, I say to Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki, the previous speaker; not next year—and it will provide an opportunity for New Zealand to talk to Prime Ministers from around the world and world leaders but also to show off New Zealand to the world. The APEC in 1999—some members will remember it. I was 16, I think, at the time. It’s an opportunity to show New Zealand to the world, so we’ve got to get it right.

The Green Party will not even vote for this bill to go to a select committee. There are, I think, legitimate issues you can talk about when it comes to people coming into the country, having, essentially, a waiver of New Zealand law temporarily to provide security. There are legitimate questions around that and around the appropriateness of special legislation around special events, and in a perfect world, that’s not how you would make law in the country. But the Greens say, “No, no. Actually, it’s so beyond the pale we can’t even send the bill to a committee.” So, yet again, the National Party is going to help out the Government and make sure that the bill can go to a committee, because we’re a responsible party of Government and we realise that you actually need sensible measures in order to host events like this.

When you’ve got, I hope, the President of the United States—whoever that is—coming to New Zealand and you’ve got world leaders with millions of people behind them and economies worth trillions of dollars, and we’re a small country of not yet 5 million people, you do have to make sensible precautions and sensible measures. So the bill does that, and, yet again, the National Party will save the Government and provide sensible, constructive support to make sure that they can actually govern the country in the interests of New Zealanders. It’s a shame the Green Party won’t even vote for it at first reading to send it to a committee. That just demonstrates why they will always be a minority party that New Zealanders do not trust with the Treasury benches. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is pretty exciting that New Zealand gets to host APEC 2021, because it gives us a chance to show our leadership, right here in the region. Of course, having been part of APEC since 1989, with APEC being a forum that has facilitated economic growth, cooperation, trade, and investment in this region, it has been a really good thing for us. So to be able to host world leaders and international media is a great thing. However, as others have said before me, we need to make sure we do it well. As hosts, we need to be responsible hosts and make both our guests feel safe but also members of the New Zealand public feel safe at the same time as well, and that’s really what this bill does.

APEC New Zealand, which is the team lead by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, has analysed the situation and found that we need some specific legislation in order to be able to play our role as good hosts and make sure that everyone feels safe when they’re here, and that’s what this bill is about. It’s about ensuring that the New Zealand Police have the resources that they need to be able to do so.

There’s just one point that I wanted to emphasise, in case there is some fear that this will be opening up our borders to a whole bunch of people with weapons coming in here to New Zealand. I just want to emphasise that during the leaders’ events period, there will be certain foreign protection officers who will be allowed to carry firearms, subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Police and subject to conditions that the commissioner may impose, like the type of weapon and like the number of weapons that can be brought in that is appropriate. They will be carried only by highly trained protection officers while they are here protecting their leaders. These weapons will also be recorded on entry and exit from New Zealand, as well.

The other point that I just wanted to emphasise is that this is for a limited period of time, it’s for a specific purpose, and it’s to keep those who are coming here safe. Different countries have different levels of security requirements, and we’re catering for that as a good host. That’s pretty much what this bill is about. Clause 3 of the bill provides that the bill will self-repeal on the close of the leaders’ event period, which is 21 November 2021.

So this is a practical bill that will go a long way to keep our guests who come here for APEC 2021 safe and it will protect New Zealanders during that period, as well. It’s for a specific purpose and for a specific time, and I commend the bill to the House.

on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: I move,

Motion agreed to.