Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill

I move, That the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill be now read a second time.

I’ve been waiting some time to deliver my second reading speech. I’m thankful for the work of the select committee, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and the work they’ve done on the bill—the very careful consideration that I know would have been carried out under the chairpersonship of Simon O’Connor, because he is one of the responsible chairs of select committees in this House, and I’m very thankful for his consideration.

This bill is designed to deal with the very small number of people who will potentially return to this country from a conflict zone: people who went there with an ideological or philosophical or religious conviction that is antithetical to some of the values that we have in New Zealand. So it deals with a real risk that is apparent now because of what is happening in the Middle East, particularly in Syria, and we need to make sure that our authorities have the tools available to mitigate that risk, even though these are people who will not have been convicted of a crime but who will be returning to our community.

The bill seeks to strike a balance between a management regime for people who pose a risk but also reflecting that they haven’t been through a conventional criminal justice and conviction process and therefore should not be treated as such.

So I am thankful for the members of the select committee who considered the bill. It heard 101 submissions and deliberated accordingly. As I understand it, although some changes to the bill have been recommended, the committee could not come up with a majority view, and so it has been reported back in its original state.

I understand, and I know, in fact, that some of the submitters—indeed, many of the submitters—expressed concern about the bill because of the conceptual difference between dealing with a regime that places restrictions on people who would otherwise be free, and does so on the civil standard of proof, as opposed to people who have been properly considered in terms of criminal justice offending, convicted, and placed under the appropriate criminal justice sentencing regime that we would have.

I go back to the point that, as we do in other respects—for example, for people who have completed a sentence but are still considered to be a risk and who would therefore fall under our extended supervision order regime or people who are deported from another country after having been convicted but who still pose a risk and therefore fall under our returning management offenders regime—this is an equivalent regime to deal with people from the specific circumstances of having engaged in antithetical activity abroad and who would pose a risk once they’re returned to the community here. So that is what we are trying to achieve. It is about ensuring our communities are safe. It is a national security issue, and it has been dealt with accordingly. This is about giving our authorities augmented powers to deal with that particular situation.

The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has recommended three changes to the bill. It is proposed that those changes will amend the bill to more explicitly provide that the court can set out control order conditions on terms which the court considers appropriate. In the end, it is for a court to be persuaded that an order over a particular person is justified and what the content of those orders might be. Secondly, to clarify for the purposes of efficiency, when the Commissioner of Police makes an interim control order application without notifying the subject person, the court must hold a subsequent hearing without notice. Obviously, once the person is located or crosses the border, they are then notified. They have the opportunity, with the benefit of legal aid, to review the order. And, thirdly, the other change that is recommended is that in order to prevent a relevant person from seeking notoriety, the court must consider whether lifting name suppression would promote or encourage hostility, criminal acts, or terrorism.

So this deals with the situation that we’re dealing with people who pose a risk. We want them to be under an appropriate regime so that we can assist rehabilitation—if necessary, de-radicalisation. We know that some people in those circumstances may seek notoriety, but sometimes people forget that when they are seeking notoriety, they are also placing themselves at risk, and actually, we have a duty and a responsibility to minimise that possibility as well. I think those proposed changes will strengthen the bill and better help us address the particular risk.

There were some other sensible amendments to the bill, which the whole of the committee was not able to agree on, and some of those will appear by way of a Supplementary Order Paper. That includes access to provisions allowing access to effective civil legal aid, a review of the bill in two years’ time, and providing legal protections for people when a control order is sought on the basis of classified information.

I might say that in relation to the review period, that’s not problematic because we have already started—in fact, are close to concluding—a thoroughgoing review of the Terrorism Suppression Act. We knew it was problematic back in 2007 and 2008, and that review is long overdue, and that will draw a conclusion, and I expect we will see permanent changes anyway. Then, in relation to the use of classified information, that is a piece of work that is ongoing, that responds to work that the Law Commission has already done in relation to national security information in courts. Parliament should expect to see the product of those labours sometime next year. So there will be a Supplementary Order Paper that will deal with some of those changes as well.

This provides enhanced provisions for the police to manage a risk in the community. I think it draws a good balance; I think it draws the right balance. I know there are those who go around saying “It should be harder. It should be harsher.”, and “We are the party of harsh and hardness.” I don’t buy into that rhetoric; it is nonsense. It is a pity that in the formulation of this bill, in putting it together for the benefit of the safety of our community, we haven’t reached, if not unanimity, certainly the support of our colleagues opposite. That is their prerogative, but this bill achieves good safety for the community in a risky situation, and I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I never thought that I’d be standing in this House opposing a bill that relates directly to safety and our national security. I’ll start my contribution this afternoon by saying that on Wednesday, 24 July this year at 1 p.m., the Minister invited me to his office to signal that there was an issue around our national security and community safety that related to the risk of Kiwis returning from overseas having participated, supported, or sponsored some type of terror activity, and specifically speaking about the risk that we’d seen with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and the major commitment that we’ve made as a nation over the last three or four years in trying to defeat what was a global risk.

I made it very clear to him in that meeting that we anticipated that he probably would not receive support from one of his coalition partners. Of course, I’m directing my comments towards the Green Party, because the Green Party, in their history in this House—and they have their own ideology, and I’m respecting that, and I understand that. That’s been their history. But their history, quite simply, has been they will not support bills that come to this House that relate to national security. They will not do it.

I said to the Minister very clearly in that meeting with our own officials and with his officials, “We will support you. The National Party will support you. But the expectation is this: that you bring a proposition through Cabinet and a bill to this House that will put the proper protections in place to make sure that we can keep our country and our citizens as safe as possible.” That is one of the fundamental jobs of any Government and any Parliament, to keep the citizens safe. I said the expectation—

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Police State—you want a police State, Mr Mitchell. Detention without arrest.

So this is the attitude—this is exactly the typical attitude that is driven out of the Labour Party. They see the protection of our people—

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: Another social experiment.

—the protection of our country. Exactly—this country is being treated like a social experiment, and it’s a police State. No, we don’t live in a police State; we don’t. It’s not a laughing matter, either. It’s actually something that this Parliament should take as deadly serious—that is, a real, genuine threat that we’re not immune to, and something that we need to take seriously as a Parliament. If we don’t put the protections in place—it’s still a laughing matter, I can see—then who is going to do it? I’d ask the member to stand and take a call.

In that meeting, I was very clear with the Minister that one of the primary issues that we’re going to have to address is the ability to detain at the border. If someone slips through the net, and for whatever reason our own agencies aren’t notified of their pending return, if we can’t get an interim control order in place, our services, our police, must be able to detain at the border until a control order can be put in place and until some basic background work has been done, in terms of the level of risk to our community. It is completely unacceptable and intolerable, in my view, to have someone arrive at our border and be able to walk straight out into the community without understanding what their intent is, and what the risk is.

I’d appeal to the Minister of Defence, who is in the House. We have differences—there’s no doubt about that—and there’s been some tension created around that. I won’t go into those issues now, but the one thing that I will acknowledge is his service in our own Defence Force, and his service and his experience in the Omani defence forces. He has an understanding and he knows the types of threats that this country faces. He has an understanding and he knows that they are real. He has an understanding and has dedicated a lot of his adult life to the service and the protection of our country, without a doubt, and I acknowledge that service.

I’d be very interested to see—because I understand that he is the person in New Zealand First that is actually handling the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill—whether or not he will come to this House and whether or not they will support our Supplementary Order Papers in making the changes to a bill that at the moment is weak. We will not, hand on heart, as a party, stand here and support a bill that we know is not going to provide the protection that Kiwis need.

Let me come back to my original point. Let me highlight to the country who is leading this bill now: it is the Green Party. The Green Party are now taking the lead on this bill. Do you know why? It’s quite simple. It came down to petty politics.

💬 Marja Lubeck: Stop the sour grapes.

Sorry, what was that? If you’re going to say it, say it clearly so I can respond. It came down to this: quite simply, when the bill was released, the National Party came forward with seven amendments that we wanted to make that would strengthen it, that would address the issues that I spoke to originally in that meeting on 24 July with the Minister. The Minister’s response publicly was this: “They’re silly.”

Well, I’ll tell you how silly they are. Let me take just one, and that comes to the issue of detained on arrival at our border. Through the select committee process—which, by the way, was compressed; it wasn’t given the time it actually deserved—the police came in front of the committee. In relation to our amendment that we put forward giving them the ability to be able to detain someone at the border that arrived back in New Zealand that we had a suspicion or had information to say could have been involved in some sort of terrorism activity or sponsoring or supporting some type of terrorism activity around the world, we wanted the police to have 72 hours to detain that person to allow the High Court to have time to put an interim control order in place. The police reiterated four times during the select committee process that that would be a welcome tool that they would like to have.

The Minister stood in this House and he just told us that he wanted to make sure that our agencies had the tools—go back and check the Hansard—that they need to be able to be effective, to be able to make sure that they can protect Kiwis. Do you know what the response was? They won’t support it. They won’t support our own agency, our New Zealand Police, who are responsible for that—to give them a tool that they’ve said very clearly in front of the select committee that they would welcome. They outlined why. Because they feel that relying on another piece of legislation outside of the bill, and it relates to the ability of a customs officer to be able to hold someone for up to four hours and that’s it—after four hours, they’re able to leave. They didn’t feel that they’d be able to get a surveillance team in place. They didn’t feel confident that they’d be able to have the processes in place to be able to pick that person up before a High Court Judge was able to issue an interim control order. So I’m highlighting just how weak this bill is.

To anyone that watches or studies the passage of these types of bills, it should be a huge red flag and a huge warning signal that in the select committee process it was the Green Party member that was leading it. It was the Green Party member that’s asked for concessions. They want a tougher test on the intelligence that we use. So they want to weaken and water down the ability of our intelligence agencies to be able to actually take action on and work with our law enforcement agencies to be able to provide the protection, allow the protection that we need. That’s how fundamentally weak this bill is.

We will continue to strive through the committee of the whole House. We’ll have our own Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) now that we’ll put up. I will appeal—I am making a genuine appeal—to our Minister of Defence to support us on these SOPs and to make this bill stronger, because I don’t believe for one minute, hand on heart, that he is going to allow a bill to come through this House and allow the country to think that the protections have been put in place when they haven’t.

I’d like to talk, in the limited time that I have, to some of our amendments. Today, funnily enough, we met with members of the Australian Parliament. I was talking to them about this and they were surprised and shocked that there hadn’t been close cross-party collaboration on an issue around national security, and I agree with them.

I want to acknowledge the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, Simon O’Connor. The Minister’s right. He’s an outstanding chair and he did the best that he could to try and create some harmony in the committee to get some cross-party collaboration and work done. Unfortunately, that couldn’t be achieved. It was obvious that the Government members were under orders and it was obvious that the Green member was actually driving it.

All I’d say is this. When I chaired the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and we took the returning foreign fighters bill through—I want to acknowledge David Shearer and Phil Goff, who worked very well with the National Party. We made concessions inside of that legislation for them. We worked closely with them to make sure that we could bring a bill back to the House that had cross-party support. This Government has chosen not to do that. I haven’t seen one step towards us in terms of wanting to collaborate and actually make this a stronger bill in the best interests of our country.

Order! The member’s time’s expired.

I’m pleased to stand and take a short call on the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill. Can I, firstly, acknowledge the Minister the Hon Andrew Little for bringing this to the House, and I also would like to acknowledge the chairmanship of Simon O’Connor. I am not a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, but I have sat in on it a couple of times, and he does do a very good job of chairing. I’d also like to acknowledge the select committee, because I can imagine this has probably been a fairly robust select committee.

I think the fundamental purpose of this bill is ultimately to keep our communities and New Zealanders safe. So I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. If I might just acknowledge, obviously, the tragedy that has happened on White Island and continues to unfold. Obviously, this is my first opportunity to acknowledge somewhat personally in the House those who have died and those who are still waiting for knowledge of their loved ones. And thanks to all the first responders.

I’ll take a few moments to address this bill primarily as the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. And thank you for the kind words from members. It’s always worrying when a member of National gets praised by the Labour Party. It probably causes me trouble. But I would like to start as the chair of the committee and then add some more personal thoughts.

In one way, I do thank the Minister for bringing the bill to the House. It’s an important intention, but I stand along with Mark Mitchell and others on this side who feel it’s too weak. I would say, for the record as well, that the time—effectively, two and a half, three weeks—to consider the bill was far too short. So I’d like in this small speech in the House to acknowledge the many New Zealanders who wanted to submit and didn’t find they had time, or those who were able to quickly write some thoughts but would have liked to consider it further, and to express my disappointment that we didn’t have that time. But, equally, it’s not the power of the committee to make changes to that. We were given the report-back date. So to that end, I do thank all the members of the committee across the House who worked extra-long hours on sitting days and pretty much every non-sitting day to make sure we could report this back in some shape or form, and that is a bill that has some minor changes—three of them. Actually, that’s not quite fair. There are three changes; all of them are important. But I think you’re hearing, Mr Speaker, already a flavour, particularly from this side of the House, that there was a sense there should have been a lot, lot more.

It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge—and I won’t do it by name for a variety of reasons, mainly because we’re dealing with terrorism, intelligence, and security matters. But we were well served by some excellent officials across a range of ministries and agencies, and I just want to acknowledge them and their hard work and, again, the time pressure that we were under.

The bill, fundamentally, is about a small but real number of New Zealanders who have gone overseas to fight primarily, if not almost exclusively, in jihadist activity. The bill, of course, is setting up for the future. We don’t know what other forms of terrorism may develop, but there is a real possibility of these New Zealanders desiring, wanting, or having to return to the country. Until this law is passed, we don’t have the ability to actually control or put some structure around their return; be that where they’re going to be living, who they can visit, whether they should have internet access, and so forth. And why that’s not possible is that because they’ve been involved in terrorist activities overseas, we don’t have the domestic evidence. Put it this way: we’re not going to be sending New Zealand police officers to Syria to work out what crimes they’ve committed.

So it is a fairly serious bill and it’s one of the reasons why this is a bill that sits within the civil, not criminal, jurisdiction. It was put to the committee many times, “Why are we not structuring this as a criminal piece of law?” And the advice that we’ve got and we’ve somewhat articulated in the report is that, fundamentally, there is no New Zealand criminal evidence to present. If there is, we can deal with that. This is for those people returning where there isn’t that evidence.

The Minister’s touched on several of the changes; the one that I felt was particularly important and we have recommended, if the House continues to proceed with this bill, is around name suppression. The bill, as originally drafted, would allow the, let’s say, suspected, accused, noted terrorist to ask the court to have their name made public. The court can suppress it, but it was basically in the hands of the accused, the terrorist, for want of a better word, to say “Oh no, I want my name out there.” The committee thought that there was the risk of notoriety that someone may actually just choose: “Yeah, I want my name out there. I want to be known.” We thought it was much more prudent that the court have the ability to make a judgment on that, to say, “Yes, that’s OK”, or “Actually in this case we’re not.”

So, importantly, the committee has not recommended that the bill proceed. We were not able to come to agreement, but we have made three suggested changes. But I would stress now, speaking more personally, that the bill doesn’t go far enough. And it’s fundamentally—and I think Mark Mitchell in his contribution is right—that the Green Party was required in order to get this through the House. I think the Green Party and I have very different views when it comes to notions of due process, natural justice, and human rights. Where this bill is headed and where it currently sits presumes far too many rights to the terrorist—if you will—and not enough for the public safety and welfare of New Zealand. So I might just touch on a few of those.

Mark Mitchell touched on the detention capacities. The New Zealand Police were abundantly clear to us that they would like to have the ability—the word they used was “tools”—to be able to detain someone at the border. Again, I’m not going to go through all of the security arrangements at the moment, but there is a limited time that someone can currently be detained at the border, and that is not enough time to go and get the interim court orders for what would be an unusual circumstance, but we are trying as a Parliament to pre-empt all problems as best we can so that the Police have the ability to detain someone at the border. That’s been declined, despite—I again want to stress—it being not just simply National Party MPs wanting that but it was something that the Police spoke to.

I have concerns about the potential compromising of some of our intelligence operations. Again, the push primarily from the very left and the Green side is that the person coming back into the country needs to fully understand what they’re accused of and why. That’s not unreasonable to a point, but if it ultimately means that intelligence operations are being compromised in open court, that’s a problem, and, in fact, it continues—if you will—the terroristic action.

The age: the bill only applies to people over 18 years of age. It should be no surprise to anyone in this House that terrorists aren’t defined by being 18 years and older. There are a number of examples, including in the Commonwealth Realms, where terrorists are under 18 years of age—and this bill strictly doesn’t cover them.

Oranga Tamariki provided good advice to us, but I will say that there were two issues: they said they could cope with it, and to the extent that I think they’ll be able to deal with children who’ve got serious issues—including being terrorists—that is one thing. But the fundamental problem is that for Oranga Tamariki to—if you will—kick in, they need to have the requisite evidence for the act to occur. The gnawing concern in my head is that that evidence may not be present to do with that under-18-year-old. They’re not really, in one way, the appropriate agency. They were at pains to say that they’d work with Police and so forth, but now you’re creating gaps—and that’s no disrespect to Police or Oranga Tamariki or any groups; it’s just when you are doing that multi-agency, you’re running into problems.

Look, the other issue is around the length of the control orders themselves. Unlike many other jurisdictions in similar countries, these control orders only last for six years. Members might think—particularly on the Government side—that that’s OK. But a week or so ago, a man ran out on to London Bridge and killed two Cambridge ex-students; he knifed them in the Fishmongers’ Hall in London and then ran out on to London Bridge. A jihadist committed terrorism. He had been, effectively, under a control order for six years; he’d been going through a reintegration programme. I’m sure that for some it works jolly well, but clearly for this fellow the de-escalation programme didn’t work—and it was six years. I think members should be very cautious and not naive to think that somehow a returning terrorist with their zealotry will necessarily change. I think it’s really important to stress that we’re not saying that if someone comes back, we slap a control order on for life; it’s just that the court should have the ability to continue to extend it if needed. I for one do not want to see what happened in London happen here.

So there are a range of issues. The National Party will be putting forward Supplementary Order Papers. It’s absolutely our intention to make this be world-class legislation. We are absolutely unapologetic that we want it to be as tough and strong as possible, because, fundamentally, Parliament has one duty and one duty only, and that is to serve the public and to ensure its safety. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

This is a great piece of legislation. I must say that I did have the opportunity of sitting on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on a number of occasions, and there was a lot of discussion around two things. One was around detention without arrest, and that’s not something which this Government would contemplate in this context. The other was around the age at which detention should be possible or at which it should be possible to surveil these people—there was a suggestion that it should be 14, but we know that Oranga Tamariki has every ability to do this.

On that basis, this is an excellent piece of legislation. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could I commence by joining others who have expressed their condolences this afternoon to the victims of yesterday’s horrific tragedy on White Island. Some years ago, my wife and I had the pleasure of doing exactly what yesterday’s victims were doing: we travelled out by boat from Whakatāne, had a wonderful trip out there, entertained by dolphins, landed on this extraordinary, quite alien environment, and thoroughly enjoyed travelling around the island. As I visualise today what would have happened, I realise that there but for the grace of God go we, because had we been caught in those circumstances I don’t think there would have been anywhere to run. So I do want to pay tribute to those first responders, those in the medical teams—including in my own city of Hamilton; I know that many at Waikato Hospital have been very busy helping with those who are injured—and to think, in particular, of the victims and their families, and to send my aroha to all those who are caught up in such a tragic event.

I wish to echo the comments of my colleagues the Hon Mark Mitchell and Simon O’Connor, the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, in expressing our considerable disappointment in the fact that this bill, which is covering one of the most important measures that could possibly come before the Parliament, is such a weak measure. It’s not only a weak measure; it is extraordinary and very disappointing to see that members opposite are taking such short calls on a measure that is of such great importance. I find that absolutely baffling. I have no idea why they would be unwilling to explain to the public why they made so many compromises in order to accommodate the Green Party and not even be prepared to explain that to those who will be listening and, I dare say, many who will be listening with considerable concern today.

I’m no longer a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—I was until about six months ago, and I thoroughly enjoyed that role. I was, however, on a couple of occasions, able to sit in on the select committee’s consideration of submissions. I think the thing that struck me about the submissions that we heard during that fairly truncated process was that the vast majority of those who chose to submit to the select committee focused very much on the civil liberties aspects as they affected those who might come under the purview of this bill rather than on the very important need to protect the vast majority of New Zealanders who would be very fearful of any possibility of an incident of terrorism being committed on our shores. I don’t mean that to sound hypothetical, because we have been the victims of terrorism in the past, and, sadly, it seems almost inevitable that at some stage we will be again. That’s why this bill is so important, that’s why this bill ought to be fit for purpose, and that’s why the National Party is so disappointed—in fact, more than disappointed; frankly, disgusted—that this bill is far from fit for purpose. It is weak, and, frankly, it is likely to cause more harm than good.

As my two previous colleagues have indicated, we in the National Party would very much wish to be able to support this bill, and we will continue to engage constructively, particularly through the committee stages by putting forward Supplementary Order Papers intended to strengthen its provisions and make it fit for purpose.

If anyone has ever been in or around the business of terror internationally, terrorists do pose a very real threat. We know that there are some people who have become extraordinarily disturbed, brainwashed—however you wish to put it. If they are going to be coming back to New Zealand with those demented ideas that threaten the security of innocent New Zealanders, we as parliamentarians must do everything we can to ensure that our security agencies have all the measures in place that they need to protect us from those people, and, in particular, to ensure that our citizens themselves are protected. There are no exceptions to that. That’s our responsibility. That’s what this bill should do, and it most certainly does not. Both the Hon Mark Mitchell and Mr O’Connor have explained why it doesn’t in several important ways. I look forward to supporting the Supplementary Order Papers that they will put forward to try to make things right.

The Greens are supporting this Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill because we would all like to live in a world without violence and without hatred. The Green Party has stood for nonviolence and protection of human rights since the very beginning days of our movement. These are and always have been core values for us, and we take very seriously the difficult question of how the Government should respond to violent radicalisation of all kinds. In the context of the 15 March attacks, we are particularly aware of the rising threat of global white supremacist violence. It is in this context that I rise to speak to the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill.

This bill will introduce a new system of civil control orders for those who have engaged in terrorism activities overseas on their return to New Zealand. I fully acknowledge that the Green Party has reservations about introducing civil control orders because of the extent to which these curb rights and freedoms without requiring a criminal standard of proof. Lawyers, academics, journalists, and human rights advocates have all raised questions about the need for this bill and the degree of procedural safeguards. I particularly want to thank all those who, despite a short time frame, pulled together careful analysis that helped the select committee improve the bill. This is why we need a strong and independent civil society: it is of invaluable assistance in creating good law, which all of us here in this House are concerned about.

So it’s no secret that the Green Party originally planned to oppose this legislation; however, we have the power and the responsibility in Government to improve things as much as we can, wherever we can. I want to acknowledge Minister Little and all the Labour members of the select committee for working constructively with my colleague Golriz Ghahraman to enhance procedural protections in this bill. For anyone who still says we should have let Labour sort this out with National, I urge people to read the select committee report and look to the changes National would have added. To their eternal shame, National is not getting up here today presenting a liberal defence of due process before the courts. Nope. Instead, they’re getting up and arguing for a Draconian regime that would be truly appalling.

The Green Party is proud to have prevented that outcome. We are proud that we took this law in the other direction, adding additional protections. The National Party have been playing politics with national security in the worst possible way, demonstrating a shocking disregard for human rights. We could not, in good conscience, leave such an important issue to the demands of an increasingly authoritarian National Party. National blocked changes at select committee that were called for by organisations such as the New Zealand Law Society, the Human Rights Commission, the Law Commission, the Privacy Commissioner, and the Chief Justice. We will still be making these changes through a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) Minister Little has lodged today.

Thanks to the advocacy of the Green Party in Government, we will be introducing a review clause requiring independent consideration after two years of the operation of this law, including consideration of whether this legislation is needed. This is particularly important given the shortened select committee time frame for the consideration of the bill. This is just one example of the changes the National Party blocked at select committee in an egregious display of bad-faith politics. This SOP will also be introducing a guarantee of access to legal aid. This protection will ensure fair process and access to justice so that all New Zealanders have confidence that people subject to this regime are able to properly test the evidence against them through a specialist lawyer. Once again, this was blocked at select committee by National.

Through the SOP, we will also improve the provisions for security-cleared lawyers to be used when evidence is restricted for national security reasons, enhance the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act protections, and made a suite of other procedural improvements—all blocked by National at select committee. Most importantly, Mr Speaker—Mr Speakers [Change of presiding officer]—we have prevented National—

💬 SPEAKER: Mr Speaker.

—Mr Speaker—from taking this legislation down a very dark pathway. Not only did they block improvements, they sought changes that would have been unconscionable in a free and democratic society. They wanted 14-year-olds to be included in this legislation. They wanted indefinite control orders. This could have led to children being slapped with life-long restrictions. They also tried to use this bill to authorise 72-hour airport detention. These changes are so far removed from what is necessary to protect safety that they can only be seen as a dog whistle to hardliners. We are not in Government to let National get their way on issues as important as these.

I’m very proud we’ve stopped that from happening and secured significant additional protections for the right to justice. Our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act requires that any limits on rights and freedoms must only be subject to reasonable limits. We take seriously the responsibility to ensure our laws meet this standard. This should be true for all political parties in this House. It is a sad day when one of our major political parties completely ignores the importance of human rights for the sake of political convenience. I’m proud that the Greens have been able to engage constructively to improve due process and New Zealand Bill of Rights Act protections.

Finally, I would like to once more thank the people who did submit on this bill, despite the very tight time frame. They’ve worked hard to improve the bill and I think they’ve succeeded. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Before I call the Hon Gerry Brownlee, Marama Davidson, I came in late during that speech, but, during the time I was in the chair, I observed that you read your speech; you should not.

Well, Mr Speaker, I think it’s appropriate that you should have noted that the speech was read. It was obviously prepared in the—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. The member knows well that, my having ruled on a matter, he cannot now refer to it.

Well, why would we ever have a point of order where we talk about Speakers’ rulings? We must be able to refer to it.

All I’m saying is—Mr Speaker, if I may continue—that that was a dreadfully sanctimonious offering to the House, that really just tells the House that the Greens think a wet bus ticket is all that’s required to prevent a potential terrorist from committing some kind of atrocity in New Zealand. I can’t understand why there are so many members in this House who have their heads in the sand about this sort of activity. Terrorists cause trouble all over the world. We are not immune because of our isolation, and we found that out on 15 March. No one knew about that particular terrorist, but, if they did, would anybody in New Zealand not want him to have been in some way confined in the activities that he could undertake on a daily basis? I don’t think there would be.

This bill is incredibly weak. It goes out to tell New Zealanders that there is now protection, should a terrorist turn up on our borders, enabling these control orders to be put in place. But the terrorists who come here are not the sort of people who are going to volunteer their position. They’re not going in and declaring “I am a terrorist and you need to do whatever you can to stop me doing what I’m going to do or want to do.” The reality is that they will be known as they arrive at the border because we do have good intelligence relations through the Five Eyes network and other networks, and so we should understand, we should have a fair idea, when someone is coming into the country from another part of the world. When they get here, what the Green Party wants is for them to be given the total benefit of the doubt about, apparently, their sincerity to move into this country or to move to this country and become suddenly a good and law-abiding citizen. The fact is that most of them don’t know what it is to be a good and law-abiding citizen. We have simply said that, if we’re going to have a bill that tells New Zealanders they are secure against these sorts of people coming into the country and freely practising their terror tactics, it has to have some teeth. This bill doesn’t.

So let’s be clear: someone has arrived at the border, they’ve got a history of being part of terrorist organisations, and they are trying to enter New Zealand—they come as a refugee or they come as someone who is displaced with no passport. There are international obligations on New Zealand to deal with them at that point, but four hours is all this bill will allow for the case to be made to the High Court for the control order to be put in place. The control order doesn’t stop them entering the country. It doesn’t, necessarily, put them into some kind of detention situation. It may not even put them into any kind of electronic surveillance situation. They could just be under sort of a “report when you want to” - type regime. So into the country they come, and if they’re coming, they’ll have friends here. Do we assume that they won’t be wanting to proselytise some of their terrorist-type views? All we are saying is that it might take a little longer than four hours to get the legal requirements in place.

We’re further saying that if we’re going to have a regime that does not have mandatory reporting in it as a minimum, then we’re actually treating that potential terrorist—someone who has a known terrorist association history—better than we treat some people who are out on electronic remand from the courts. That, I think, is appalling. We’re actually extending greater rights to someone who has, effectively, no right to enter the country than we do to our own citizens who are in criminal default of our law here. I can’t understand why the New Zealand First Party have agreed to that. What I do think, though, is that there’s been a bit of a conflab over on the Government side. The Greens have put out their suite of very, very weak provisions in this bill, and New Zealand First have said, “OK, well, we’ll agree with it this time. The Nats will support it. It’ll look like the whole Parliament’s in agreement, and we’ll just move on from there.” Well, we’re not in agreement, because we’re not about to pull the wool over the eyes of New Zealanders.

It was a young person, 15 years of age, who committed the terrorist act in Melbourne. Under this bill, that person, with their history of having been brought up in that environment, having been radicalised by those organisations that want to commit those terrorist activities, would suddenly fall under the care—and I say the word “care”—of Oranga Tamariki. Seriously, do we believe that Oranga Tamariki has the capacity, or should be required to have the capacity, to deal with someone in that situation? It’s just ridiculous, and for us to say, “Well, it doesn’t need to be in here, because it might not happen, etc., etc.”—the whole bill is about stuff that might not happen. So we don’t think that was an unreasonable sort of thing at all.

So we want a longer period that someone can be detained at the border while the formalities of the legal process are gone through. We want 14 to be the age at which someone would fall under this regime, and then we want the term of imprisonment, which at the moment is ridiculous if they breach a control order—now, how would you breach a control order? You don’t have to report, you’re not isolated to one part of New Zealand, and you don’t really go about your business any old day. The way the control order will be breached is if someone starts to undertake terrorist activity—acquires weapons, acquires explosives, starts targeting various little parts of the country. So they’ve already done something pretty radical. They may not at that point have committed the terrorist act, but they’ve breached the control order. So it’s either a $2,000 fine or up to two years in prison. That’s a joke. That’s an absolute joke, and I can’t understand why parties that go out there and say they’re in favour of stronger laws to protect New Zealanders would support that.

We want to have a bill that does give our authorities some teeth, some power, to actually do something should some of these people turn up. Make no mistake: how many people do we have on the terror watch list here in New Zealand? When we were in Government, we made no secret of it. It was 69 people. The current Government hasn’t mentioned the number; it’s probably bigger. But if any of those people in New Zealand made contact with people outside of New Zealand, got them in through a refugee camp to build their cell, those people coming in are not under surveillance. They might have a control order put on them, but it doesn’t mean they can’t live wherever they want in New Zealand, it doesn’t mean they have to report in to authorities at any given time, and it places very few other restrictions on them. So they could happily just lose themselves in society for a short time, reconnect with some of those ratbags that we know already exist in New Zealand, and then make a big statement to the world with some kind of terrorist activity. If anyone in this House thinks it can’t happen, they’ve got an incredibly short memory; it doesn’t even go all the way back to the late summer of 2019.

This is a sham of a bill. It is, I think, deceptive in its title—Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill—and I think it leaves New Zealanders in a position of being told by the Government “Don’t worry, everything’s under control.” when, in fact, it is far from it. The hand of friendship, the hand of helping people up etc., has been extended to potential terrorists. Remember that they’re a potential terrorist only if they are known to have the past associations in other countries or have engaged in those activities in another country. They’re not just any old person coming out of a refugee camp; they are known to be engaged with terrorist organisations or being terrorists themselves. It’s weak, it’s sad, and it is a deception that’s being perpetrated on the Government with the agreement of New Zealand First because of the Greens.

Thank you, Mr Speaker—a short call on this bill. I found the messages from the Opposition in this debate quite confusing because, on the one hand, they seem to advocate for safer communities; on the other hand, they have members standing up and saying things like they never thought they would be opposing a bill that is about the safety and security of our country, but then they oppose it. As our honourable Minister Andrew Little has clearly outlined, this particular bill addresses the benefit and safety of our communities, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to start by saying that our hearts go out to the victims and the families of the eruption at White Island.

Speaking as a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in respect of the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill, I can confirm that 101 submissions were received, 18 were made by oral evidence, and many expressed their concern and their questions about why the bill was being rushed through the legislative process. We also heard from the Law Society and Amnesty International, when they also raised concerns about the bill going into the civil and not criminal jurisdiction, as well as whether the control orders could adequately protect New Zealanders.

I can confirm that the National Party takes terrorism very, very seriously. National believes that terrorism will not and shall not be tolerated in New Zealand and that we need to protect our communities at all costs. We believe that this bill does not adequately offer this protection at this time.

Among the most glaring shortfalls, I refer, as many who have spoken before me, to the age when control orders may be issued. We propose lowering it from 18 to 14. This is in recognition of the situation, the global situation, and also in recognition of what has happened in Australia and the UK. And we also want to increase the time for detention of people arriving at the borders, thinking, quite clearly, that four hours is entirely insufficient should control orders be in the process of being secured. The Greens propose a review after two years. We believe that dealing with terrorism now cannot be left to an experiment. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity for speaking on the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill. It’s great to see a Government supporting and moving ahead with a bill that protects the safety and security of New Zealanders. I think this is an excellent bill that gives New Zealanders the confidence that we are considering our position internationally and acting on the concerns that have been raised more than once on the international stage and that affect us here in New Zealand, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I recall those infamous words of the Rt Hon Helen Clark in 2001 when she said—and I quote, “We live in a benign strategic environment.” and in a matter of weeks, we had the 9/11 terrorism attack on the World Trade Center in New York. And if issues were severe in 2001, they are now more severe in 2019.

A number of Labour members have risen in this debate and said they can’t understand why National wouldn’t support legislation that ensures the security of New Zealanders. And that’s the point they’re missing in this debate: this legislation is so weak it does not ensure the safety of New Zealanders. I think it is sad. I’ve seen many pieces of legislation passed on national security and, inevitably, they have been on a bipartisan basis with National and Labour, whether in Government or in Opposition, supporting such legislation. But what we have in this case is legislation that, because it required Greens’ support, has been so weakened that it now will not fulfil its purpose.

I listened with intense interest to the speech by Marama Davidson, the co-leader of the Greens, and she, effectively, said the human rights of a terrorist come before all other New Zealanders and the security of all other New Zealanders. And I strongly disagree with that. I think when you’re dealing with people who have chosen to leave New Zealand to go to places like Syria, to partake in jihadi activities as terrorists, and then those people come back into New Zealand, their human rights should be curtailed, because I want to live in a safe, benign strategic environment.

I strongly disagree that this legislation will fulfil its purposes, and it is with some sadness that we find a piece of national security legislation being presented to the House tonight that National is unable to support because it is simply not fit for purpose.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just rise on behalf of New Zealand First to say that I have listened with interest to the discussion, read the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee report back, and do note, with a degree of consternation, that on a matter as important as this there is such a serious divide in the House, and just state that New Zealand First has agreed to support the second reading of this bill.