Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill

Yeah, to be honest with you, Madam Chair, it’s a major concern to me that on something as serious as the terrorism suppression bill, we saw in the House yesterday on the second reading the Minister of Justice come down and take a call for five minutes. We didn’t see any of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee members in the House to take a call—

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: That member just about missed the call himself because he wasn’t paying attention.

—and so I’d ask the Minister now who seems very passionate about it to take a call and actually let the committee know what your thoughts are on the terrorism suppression bill. It’s national security and it’s a shame to see that we don’t have the Minister of Justice in the seat. We don’t have the Minister in the seat today.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Speak to it.

So, instead of the Minister on the other side of the Chamber, Carmel Sepuloni, wanting to shout down the person taking the call, stand up and take a call.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The member can’t call another member to take a call. Back to the bill, please, Mr Mitchell.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, the reality with this bill is that it completely fails at the first test. And the first test is quite simply this: that if we have someone returning from overseas that has been engaged in, or has been a sponsor of, or has supported any type of terrorist activity, we have to be able to pick them up at the border, have an interim control order or a control order in place that means the court is then able to put an order in place where we can monitor the person—our security agencies, whether it be the police or SIS can actually monitor the individual. And the bill completely fails at that first test and maybe the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins, can actually stand and take a call on this.

The reason why it fails, and the evidence that we heard in the select committee, is quite simply this: if someone arrives in New Zealand having been a participant in some type of terror group, and let’s use Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), because actually that’s where—we know about someone returning, Mark Taylor, the “Bumbling Jihadi”, whatever we want to call him. The guy’s an idiot. There’s no doubt about that. But he’s actually quite a resourceful idiot because he somehow managed to get himself to Syria and linked up with ISIS. He’s just one. He’s not the only one. And I’d put it to this committee that actually the thing that catches Governments out is the stuff that they don’t know about, are the things that they don’t think about, and therefore they don’t put plans in place to actually deal with the unknowns or have the best chance to deal with the unknowns. We don’t know how many returning terrorists or people that have been involved in terror activity may turn up on our border.

The other thing that we do know for sure is that we like to think in a perfect world that our partners, whether it be Five Eyes partners or other coalition partners that have joined us, for example, as part of a broader coalition of 12 countries in Iraq and Syria to try to remove the threat of ISIS—we’d like to think that our systems would work properly and that we would be notified and that we would know about that person trying to get back to the country, back into New Zealand, that we were actually notified and we knew that they were on their way.

In a perfect world, this bill might work because it means that we do have time. The application can be made, the High Court can put a control order in place, and they can be picked up at the border. But the reality is this: we don’t live in a perfect world and the possibility that we could have someone arrive at our border without the proper red flags or notifications is real. And if we do have someone arrive at our border and we are notified, whether they’re in the air or even whether they are starting to come through customs, this is what the Government’s relying on. They’re relying on the Customs and Excise Act. They’re relying on the New Zealand Customs Service to be able to detain them. They’re probably going to have to break the law, because we had Customs officials in front of the committee and they have got very specific regulations that allow them to detain people. They can legally detain someone for up to four hours. The problem for the Government is this: we heard from the officials that there is no way—there is no way—that they can guarantee that an interim control order could be put in place within four hours and before that person legally had to be released and could walk straight out into the community.

It’s good to see the Minister of Justice in the Chamber. I hope that I don’t have to go back over this for him again. If I have to, I will, and, Madam Chair, I hope that you will give me the time to do that.

So we’re relying on—[Bell rung] Thank you, Madam Chair. So we’re now presented with the scenario where this person could walk straight out of the airport and straight into the community. That is a totally unacceptable risk. That is something that this Parliament and this Government has to ensure—has to make sure—cannot happen. Not 80 percent, not 90 percent, not 95 percent; we have to be 100 percent sure that that cannot happen. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little, I challenge him to stand up and tell this committee and tell this Parliament and tell the country that he can 100 percent guarantee that we will not have a scenario—well, he shakes his head; just get up and do it—where we could have someone returning to our border that can be detained by Customs, probably outside their own rules and regulations and law, for up to four hours. The police that came in front of the committee said this.

They could not guarantee that they could have a surveillance team in place to pick up that person when they left the airport. What does that mean? That means that they just walk straight out into the community without us knowing what their intent is, or what’s in their mind. To me, that is a 100 percent unacceptable risk that’s being passed back on to the community. The Police themselves said that the amendment that the National Party was putting up to give our law enforcement agency the ability to actually stop, detain, and hold that person for up to 72 hours to allow the High Court to get a control order in place—they welcomed that. They wanted that power. I’d like the Minister to stand and tell this House why he wouldn’t work with us, why he wouldn’t sit down to discuss what we feel are seven very strong amendments and Supplementary Order Papers—that we will talk to—that strengthen this bill. Because to me—we’ll talk to the rest of the bill—it fails at the first test because we can’t stop that person, we can’t detain them. So what we’re saying to the country—and this is the reality and this is what happens, Minister, when you sell your soul to the Green Party, to a party that—

💬 Michael Wood: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I believe that items relating to control orders are in Part 2 of the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): That’s correct, so if the member could resume his debate and talk about Part 1.

I’m very happy to, Madam Chairperson, because I’ll be taking several calls in Part 2 of the bill that relate to control orders, but back to my original point.

💬 Brett Hudson: What is the purpose of the bill?

Well, and that’s what I’m talking to, the purpose of the bill, and I’m being very clear that this bill fails at the first test, at the purpose. The purpose is to pick up returning Kiwis that have been involved with sponsoring or assisting in some type of terror activity when they arrive at our border. That is the purpose of the bill. That’s the original meeting that I had with the Minister, that’s what was discussed, that’s what the imminent threat is, that’s why we’re trying to pass this legislation through the House as quickly as possible. It’s the right thing to do. It would have been nice—there was a three-month lag between that original meeting with the Minister and the actual bill being brought to the House—to have given the public and interested parties more time to make a submission. That was one of the big bugbears that actually came out through the select committee process: that it was a compressed process and there wasn’t enough time to actually look at it and make submissions. But this bill fails, and the Minister—instead of coming and sitting down with us and working with us to come up with a strong bill that will actually, genuinely protect our people in New Zealand, Kiwis, he didn’t want to do that. He sold out to the Green Party, a party that’s made—when he first brought this bill out, the party and the spokesperson, Golriz Ghahraman, said it was “dog-whistling”. She said it was “dog-whistling”. She said, “There’s no place for this extra sort of dog-whistling in lawmaking.” She came out against the bill and now she’s leading it on behalf of the Labour Party and New Zealand First.

What does that say about the strength of the bill? It says this: that it’s weak and it’s not going to be strong enough to protect New Zealanders and Kiwis, which is what was meant to be the intent of it. So I’d ask the Minister to please stand and address the issues that I’ve raised in terms of the original intent of this bill. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I also would like to speak on the Part 1 aspects—in particular, the purpose of the bill and the way that the bill is not able to meet fully those purposes as set out in Part 1, I think; in clause 3, from memory. In doing so, I refer back to some comments that have been made at earlier stages of the House’s consideration of the bill, including the commentary to the bill and in relation to the likelihood of a relevant person being able to arrive unexpectedly on these shores.

Just to take a step back, the meaning of “relevant person” is given in clause 6—again, within Part 1, of course. There we’ve got a person who is 18 years or older—and I’ll return to that aspect, perhaps, in a separate contribution—who is or may be coming to New Zealand or has arrived in New Zealand and who, before their arrival in New Zealand, has done a number of different things. I don’t intend to examine each of those yet, but I do want to note the relevance of the person having arrived on these shores or the prospect of them doing so, in relation to the authorities being aware of that fact.

One of the National Party’s objections to the bill—in the sense that it is actually not strong enough, as the Hon Mark Mitchell has alluded to—is the possibility that an unexpected arrival could occur such that a longer period of time than four hours of detention would actually, in fact, be needed. The commentary makes clear that, from the National Party point of view, longer than four hours is needed, and it’s clear from the official advice—I think I read it correctly; I wasn’t at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee’s consideration from start to finish, but I did attend some—that it was “unlikely” that a relevant person could arrive unexpectedly. The word unlikely is not the same as impossible, of course. So we are allowing ourselves as a Parliament, if we’re to pass this thing in its current form, the possibility, even if unlikely, that a relevant person could arrive unexpectedly. From that point, or rather the point that a relevant person is taken into detention, the clock is ticking and it’s a short time frame indeed, at a mere four hours, that such action to detain them further for the purpose of protecting the New Zealand public would need to be observed. Relating to the “Main purposes” of the Act—with that being a subheading of “Purpose of this Act” at clause 3—we note that it is to protect the public from terrorism.

That is not qualified by such an adjective or concept as “likelihood”—in fact, it’s not an adjective at all, but the notion of likelihood. It’s implied that, in fact, what we are after is certainty, partly because we haven’t qualified it in that way, but also given the subject matter, namely the protection of the public from terrorism and the importance of that. That’s something that we should not leave to chance or mere matter of likelihood, but rather with as much certainty as it’s reasonably possible to obtain. Now, I do accept that it would be possible to say, “Well, 72 hours might not be long enough either”, and we’re merely arguing over a question of degree between four hours and 72 hours. But I think that there is a significant difference between those two such that we can justify an argument that four hours would not be long enough but 72 hours, three days, would, in fact, meet that purpose.

Of course, we do need to be careful from a Bill of Rights point of view that we don’t detain people a) unnecessarily or b) unnecessarily long. But, of course, in all human rights—indeed, civil rights, political rights, and so forth—a balancing act is to be achieved, with the weighing of the rights of the public at large to be protected from terrorism versus the rights of an individual who is suspected—yes, only suspected, and innocent till proven guilty—of something that would have a disproportionately severe effect on his or her fellow New Zealand residents, if I can use that shorthand. That’s a serious matter that we should concern ourselves with in this House. And so it is that—[Time expired]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m always thankful to the member who’s just resumed his seat, Chris Penk, because his commitment to intellectual rigour means that he cannot fudge what he actually wants to say, and he does not fudge his contributions to debates on bills such as this. His extraordinary attempt to create a problem where none exists means that, in fact, I have to say, with all due respect to him, he didn’t get there, and that’s, principally, because there is no problem.

So I know Mr Penk and the Hon Mark Mitchell, who spoke before him, are concerned that the objective as set out in clause 3 of this bill won’t be met—which is about protecting New Zealanders—and, of course, it will. The difference between, I think, the members of the National Party at this point in time in their history and the rest of us in Parliament is that the rest of us are not living in fantasyland. So we work on the basis of facts, we work on the basis of things that are actually happening, and when it comes to legislation like this that is about imposing restrictions on people’s liberty in the particular circumstances where there are allegations and real suspicions of terrorism having been committed or supported abroad, we do so on the basis of good information, generally provided by our intelligence services. I can say this because the nature of the New Zealand democracy and our Government and our Parliament is that, actually, the intelligence that I have access to as the Minister in charge of our spy agencies is made available to the Leader of the Opposition as well. That means it’s made available at least to senior members of the main Opposition party—and it is.

So members in that party know exactly what this bill is trying to get to and they know that the structure of the bill is such that it will meet the objectives set out in clause 3 of the bill, and I would just invite members for the remainder of the debate on this part and on subsequent parts that we actually stick to the real world, not the fantasyland stuff that sometimes creeps into debates of this nature.

I just wanted to say that I’ve heard what the members have said about the objectives of the bill. They are about keeping New Zealanders safe. They are about dealing with the very rare and confined circumstances associated with those who have left this country and who are entitled to return to it, who have fought abroad in ideological and philosophical and religious causes and have done so in a way that is antithetical to the interests and values of New Zealand.

There is a very small number of people to whom this could, and would, apply, and the bill is drafted to make sure that should any of those people return at any time, the rest of New Zealand will be kept safe. No one will arrive unexpectedly and no one arriving back will be a surprise. We know that and members opposite know that, and so this bill bears that in mind.

This bill has been done in the time frame that it has been done in because the risk of somebody returning has got much greater, and it is just a great pity that one of the great parties of this Parliament—and it has been since 1936—thinks that in this day and age, with the peculiar circumstances that they find themselves in, it’s OK to play politics on issues of national security. I think it’s a disgrace and it reflects poorly on members opposite. I won’t be engaging any further on that. I will answer sensible questions about the content of this bill.

Can I first of all thank the Minister for taking that call and assure him that in my many contributions in the committee stage of this Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Amendment Bill, I won’t be playing politics, but what I want is an assurance that this legislation will make me safe and my family safe and all the people who live in New Zealand safe from terrorism. That’s what this legislation has to be about.

I simply have a question to ask of the Minister: are the restrictions proposed in this legislation sufficient? The Minister nods his head and says, yes, they are. I don’t share that confidence that the Minister has, because we know, and he’s just told us in the committee stage today, that no one will be arriving back who is a surprise—I accept that—but these people who will be coming back will be known to him because of his involvement with New Zealand’s security services, and they will be known to New Zealand’s security services because they have been dangerous terrorists as they have gone overseas.

We know the story about Mark Taylor, the “Bungling Jihadi”, and I’ve seen the photographs of him strapped with ammunition and with guns on his shoulder, with that smirky smile. He will potentially return to New Zealand at some stage, and I am not convinced that this legislation is strong enough to protect me from that type of terrorist.

I say to the Minister, talking to the purpose of the Act, that the Act is to protect the public from terrorism, and we know that already politics have been played in this bill, because at one stage, Andrew Little, the Minister in charge, wanted to talk to National, and then he changed his mind and went and got the support of the Greens. The Greens initially had said that they would not support the legislation because, listening to Marama Davidson, the co-leader of the Greens the other day, she felt that the human rights of Mark Taylor, the “Bungling Jihadi”, were above my concerns around safety, and I reject that. That person’s human rights do not come before the safety of all New Zealanders.

Then, when you look at the purpose of the Act and consider the two main purposes—“to protect the public from terrorism:”, and the second one is “to prevent engagement in terrorism-related activities in a country:”—they are logical. But you look at the incidental purpose, which is “to support the relevant person’s reintegration into New Zealand or rehabilitation, or both.”, and I would add to that “if possible”, because some of these people returning will simply not be able to be rehabilitated to be safe with New Zealand citizens.

You look at some of the conditions then imposed by, no doubt, the Greens to some of the control orders that are being promoted in the purpose of this bill: the curfew must not be imposed for any longer than 12 hours a day—so they impose a curfew on a person because he’s dangerous to New Zealanders, but put a restriction on it that it cannot be more than 12 hours a day; if that person is dangerous, he needs to be watched for a full 24 hours a day—electronic monitoring must not be imposed where a less restrictive condition would be sufficiently effective, and a person must not be required to attend a rehabilitation service unless the person has given their informed consent to do so. Those three clauses worry me because I know at whose insistence they were put into this legislation—the insistence of the Greens—and as we debate this legislation through the balance of this evening, I have no doubt the Labour Party will be very quiet. They won’t want to take calls, because they know that this legislation’s not strong enough. Deep down, they know it’s not strong enough, and the Hon Andrew Little shakes his head.

I say to the Minister that New Zealand was never immune from terrorism. We saw it on 15 March in my home city of Christchurch, and mark my words, sadly, we will see it again. I don’t have confidence—genuinely—that this legislation has been developed in a strong enough fashion, and in saying that, Mr Little, I am not attempting to play politics.

💬 Hon Andrew Little: It’s exactly what you’re doing.

Oh, the Minister says that I am. I’m asking him to take my word that I’m not. I want legislation that is strong enough to protect law-abiding New Zealanders and that is not in favour of terrorists.

Well, I listened a few moments ago to the speech offered to the committee by Minister Andrew Little, in which he accused National of playing politics over this bill and tried to tug at some heartstrings by saying that it’s sad that a party with our long history should choose to take this course of action. I think it ignores the fact that we have three parties in Government at the moment who are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of New Zealanders and tell them that this bill somehow provides protection from those who would return to this country with evil, terrorist intent. There is no way that the National Party wants to be involved in a sanction or sanctioning or approving—or whatever term you might like to use—a bill that is fundamentally weak, and I think the disgrace here is that a party like the Labour Party, which has had a sound record through its many long years in this House of cooperating with the other large party in the House on security matters, chose not to in this case.

The Minister sits there and shakes his head, but let me tell the committee that the discussions that were entered into initially were not discussions. They were lectures—

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: Ultimatums.

—and they were ultimatums and they were “Here is the hard line on the table.”—here is the hard line on the table—“Follow this, or don’t be on board.” Well, there was no willing ear to hear that there might be a different view. I’m fascinated, for example, that the Prime Minister—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for the committee to adjourn—

I’ll be back.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): —for the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Very difficult to resume a theme when there’s been a 1½ hour gap between the just over two minutes that I was speaking on before and now. But, essentially, what I was saying is that the purpose that is stated in this bill is a complete illusion. New Zealanders cannot feel safe because of this bill. They cannot feel that everything is being done to protect their interests against the opportunity for terrorists to come into this country and perpetrate their terrorist acts, because of this bill.

It’s fascinating that the Prime Minister in recent days has gone out and talked about Mark Taylor. Mark Taylor is the “Bumbling Jihadi”, I think the media have fondly named him. The media do this country a disservice by naming him that way because it makes him sound harmless. He’s not harmless. Our security services know he’s not harmless. He is a very, very bad man, and because he now finds himself on the end of a losing side, where there’s, apparently, no more opportunity for him to cut people’s heads off, he suddenly wants to present himself as some kind of a victim living in a refugee camp in Syria, stateless because he decided to destroy his own passport. He wants the New Zealand Government to get him back. I’ve no doubt there are politicians sitting in the Chamber tonight who are quite keen to help him out. The good thing is that because he made those threats against New Zealanders with the suggestion that there should be a number of violent acts perpetrated around Anzac Day a few years ago, he will be arrested at the border, because that is inciting a crime, and, apparently, he’s able to be arrested in that way.

But the point is, there could be these sorts of people coming back into New Zealand, where that is not immediately known—that is not immediately known. So four hours for the maximum time that someone can be detained from the time they land in New Zealand, make their way off the aircraft, or off the ship, or whatever it is that they used to come into the country, into some kind of immigration control area where they can be identified and held up, four hours is not enough time to do the sorts of checks that have already emerged around Mark Taylor. So what we are saying is: why can’t it be a bit longer?

One thing that will interest some New Zealanders is that if someone is being deported from Australia because they’re some kind of recidivist thief, or some other such, then they can be detained for an even longer period of time. Someone who apparently does have New Zealand citizenship can be detained for a longer period at the border than someone who is known to be a terrorist.

And then, look, the Minister shakes his head. He seems to have an incredible grip on the law in New Zealand! He looks at me incredulously because he’s says, “I am the Attorney-General; of course I know about the law.” Well, if he did, he would admit that this law is completely inadequate for the purpose that is being set out. He continues to shake his head.

I said earlier there were negotiations between the New Zealand National Party and the Government. But the negotiations—

💬 Hon Aupito William Sio: Then you changed your mind.

Aupito William Sio, they were not negotiations. They were a list of demands put on the table by Andrew Little, and the ultimatum given “Go with this or don’t go in it at all.” And when we looked—

💬 Hon Andrew Little: What planet are you on?

Well, I’m sorry, Mr Little asked me what planet I’m on. Mr Little, you’re the one, sir, who is not on the planet. You are the man who is presiding over a piece of legislation that is attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of New Zealanders and tell them that this will protect them from returning jihadists and other terrorists to New Zealand. This is the man who knows that we have a watch list in this country of a large number of people, that we are part of the Five Eyes network that will give us all sorts of other information, and that we have other security intelligence arrangements that will give us information about these people, and all of those countries—all of those countries—have far tougher legislation for their returning terrorist fighters and others who might seek to come into their countries than we do in this legislation. That is a simple fact.

So what we have is a watered-down version. It’s watered down because the Government places more interest in its survival as a coalition—although New Zealand First’s position is completely unable to be understood in this circumstance—all because the Green Party has stuck their head up and said, “This is what we want, and this is our price for staying involved.”

So, when we see a bill that says Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill and we read the purpose, we have to read behind that purpose to find out what can actually be done, what can be done to control those people who come into this country. Well, there’s a list that we’re going to discuss in the next part; so I won’t go on to that. But what it says in this first part here is that none of those conditions need to be put in place. They are not exhaustive, it says, and they are not particularly—meaning that they must not be always used in every case. So we can have people coming into this country, they can have a control order put on them, but there will be no provision for that person to be confined to one particular part of the country. They can go off wherever they like. Of course, they don’t have to be monitored for 24 hours, just whenever they want, up to 12 hours, I understand. Then, of course—

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: Yeah, not allowed any more than 12 hours.

Yeah, that’s right. No one is allowed to monitor them for more than 12 hours. Well, what do they think they’re going to do in those other 12 hours if they’ve got evil intent?

The other point I’d make here too is that, when it comes to things like electronic monitoring, if there is no control over where a person can go, what happens when they move out of range, no longer under other monitoring. They don’t have to report in on a weekly basis, or a fortnightly basis, or a monthly basis. They can do whatever they like.

So it is a very, very weak bill and almost denies the fact that we do have a number of people who might be in the category of returning terrorists—you can’t talk too much about that—but we also, of course, are slowly opening our borders to more and more people who come from countries where they could hide themselves in refugee numbers. I think—

💬 Hon Aupito William Sio: Oh, come on.

Mr Sio goes “Oh!”. “Oh!” he says. He’s the same man who allowed his Government—his Government sat in Cabinet—to completely miss the boat and allow the country he was born in to suffer the measles epidemic at the moment. So you sigh all you like, Mr Sio. The reality is that this is a very, very weak bill. This gives the benefit of the doubt to terrorists who turn up on the doorstep. It virtually says that, look, we’re going shake your hand, we’re going hold you here for a couple of hours, and see what we can do. We might have to put a control order on you because that’s what we’ll tell the public.

💬 Hon Clare Curran: Gerry, sit down.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! Order! You use his whole name.

“Oh, they’re under a control order.” But it’ll be a meaningless exercise and have absolutely no effect on the efforts of those people to perpetrate the terrorism that they want.

So here we have a Government that actually—we also know it’s here. It was brought in very suddenly because they’re a Government in trouble, out of step with New Zealanders, and this definitely proves it.

Just before I take any more speakers, I know we have relaxed the rule on “you” and are trialling that, but the way that was used then is not in order. So just cool it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to just respond to some of the continued assertions by members opposite in relation to this bill. It is in relation to the purpose of the bill, clause 3, which sets out the objectives of it—the purpose of it—which is to protect the public from terrorism, to prevent engagement in terrorism-related activities in the country, and to support the relevant person’s reintegration into New Zealand, or rehabilitation, or both. There are two principal points I want to make.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: You’ve sold your soul.

The first is this: we should remember the origins of this bill and its objectives.

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The member Mark Mitchell said, “You’ve sold your soul.” I expect you to pull him up in the same way that you pulled me up.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I apologise, I did not hear that. If the member did say that, he’ll stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: I said, “You sold your soul”, Madam Chair, but I withdraw and apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Oh, well, I think, in fairness, that is in the same vein.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: He withdrew and apologised.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Did you withdraw and apologise? He did.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So the origin is this: the issue of returning foreign terrorist fighters has been known about for some time. It’s not the only thing that’s been known about. The problems with the Terrorism Suppression Act have been known about since 2007—2007. This piece of legislation has been so problematic the police basically gave up on it and said, “We can’t enforce it. We can’t do things under it.” The Government of nine years from 2008 had the opportunity to fix this legislation up, and you know what they did? You know how many changes they made to it? Absolutely none, and they come here now and lecture this committee on how to make the legislation much better. They did nothing. They have nothing to offer this House on preventing terrorism abroad and preventing people who have committed terrorist activity abroad coming here and how to keep New Zealanders safe. They have nothing to contribute on that. They are totally morally bankrupt when it comes to lecturing this House on this.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! [Interruption] Order! I appreciate that there’s some strong feelings, but I’d actually ask the Minister to address the bill. We’ve had almost two minutes now, and I would like him to talk to the bill in front of the committee. That’s what this process is for, and the role of the Minister in the chair is there to answer questions and explain what his piece of legislation is around.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m responding to the assertions made by members opposite.

The other assertion made was that, in developing the bill and, no doubt, establishing its objectives, there was a meeting between myself and members of the Opposition, and it was suggested—it was asserted—that it was a meeting involving instructions and ultimatums. Now, I have to agree with the Hon Gerry Brownlee: that’s exactly what happened. It’s exactly what the Leader of the Opposition spent the meeting doing—tabled a set of claims and said, “We must have that.” So we went through it bit by bit, we adjourned the meeting, and within the hour my office got back to them and said, “Here are some things we can agree on.” And the response was “We want more. That’s not good enough.” So there was no willingness at all, and having publicly said they would support it, then said they were doubtful about it, then said they might support it, and then said they wouldn’t support it, I gave up with them. They can’t be relied on. So developing a piece of legislation to achieve the objectives set out in clause 3 was not going to be done with members opposite, because they just want to play politics.

So we went back into the Government and we said you know what? To all the parties in Government, you’re in Government now. National security is the responsibility of Government, and we have to keep New Zealanders safe. That’s what we’re doing. That’s what we’ve done. It is a great pity that members opposite cannot bring themselves to fulfil their responsibilities as a large party in this Parliament and look to the interests of New Zealanders first and look to the interests of the security and safety of New Zealanders first, because they would rather play politics. That is disappointing.

But the reality is that the purpose set out in clause 3 of this bill will be fully fulfilled by the rest of the content of this bill. As we get through the rest of the debate tonight, we will see, and I’ll respond to the assertions made by the Hon Mark Mitchell, although in relation to Part 2, when we come on to Part 2, because that’s very important. The scheme of the Act is very important, and what it does will be very important, too.

I remain totally confident that the bill will do the job that it has set out to do, which is to keep New Zealanders safe in the face of those who are entitled to return here from conflict zones where they have gone to engage in combat and conflict and terrorist activity and in other activity with an ideological, philosophical, or religious cause. Those people do pose a risk. That risk is rising, and we have to respond. This Government has responded. It’d be nice to have done it with the cooperation of members opposite, but they’ve fudged and mudged and faffed and fiffed around so that it is simply not possible. They are a disgrace. They’re an embarrassment to their own. They will get over this generation of failures, but we will get there. But we have to act. The Government has to act. All parties in Government have taken the responsibility of being in Government, discharging their responsibilities in relation to national security, clearly set out in the objectives of this bill, and this bill will do the job that is set of it. I look forward to the rest of the debate.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wasn’t planning to take a call, but after listening to that utterly vacuous and disingenuous contribution from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: No facts.

—I have to respond. Absolutely no facts, as the Hon Gerry Brownlee has just said. To accuse the current Opposition, the National Party, of lacking a commitment to security issues and of behaving in a disgraceful manner is so far from the truth that it has to be refuted. The fact of the matter is that there is no party in this Parliament that has a prouder record in defending the security of this nation—absolutely no party that has a prouder record than the National Party. The Minister in the chair knows that.

The Minister in the chair also knows that he wanted initially to have the support of the National Party, but after he said, “Do it my way. Be reasonable. There is no other way. I’m not interested in negotiating with you, I’m not interested in compromise; I simply want you to do it my way, for you to lie down, roll over, be a poodle in the corner.”, well, the National Party said that isn’t good enough. At that point, the Minister said, “Well, I don’t have to deal with you. I’ll go and talk to the Greens, and instead I will compromise till the day is long. I will do all sorts of things that I would never consider doing if I was really going to take a responsible approach to national security.”

And isn’t it interesting that the Minister’s head is suddenly down? He has stood up for the last five minutes and lambasted the National Party Opposition, he’s accused us of all sorts of disgraceful things, and now, suddenly, he’s more interested in what’s on his phone. Well, Minister, I say to you, you did not negotiate in good faith. You certainly did not negotiate with the National leader or senior figures in our caucus in a way that was open and honest and upfront. Instead, what you did was say, “I’m not interested in anything that the National Party puts forward.”, because the National Party had a number of very clear lines.

I say again that there is no party with a prouder, stronger record in the defence of the Realm than the New Zealand National Party.

💬 Hon Aupito William Sio: Oh, say it with some conviction.

It’s one of the reasons why I am so proud to be a member of this caucus—and the Hon Aupito William Sio may wish to call out an inane interjection, but he knows that that is correct, and, more importantly, so do people listening to this debate, because it comes down to the fact that the Minister spoke a moment ago about those who are entitled to return to our shores. That was the phrase that sticks in my memory from the Minister’s contribution: “those who are entitled to return to our shores.” Well, I hope that he was listening to the Hon Gerry Brownlee’s contribution a moment ago, and, in particular, those who are listening, watching TV or on the radio, will have listened to what was being said.

💬 Hon Clare Curran: They’ll be disgusted with you.

Oh, isn’t this fascinating? We now have the Hon Clare Curran telling me that to side with the Hon Gerry Brownlee in saying we don’t want this person who was so misnamed as the “Bumbling Jihadi” coming back to our country and threatening and imperilling the safety of New Zealanders—the Hon Clare Curran thinks it’s disgusting for me to say that.

💬 Hon Clare Curran: No, I think that member is disgusting, and particularly that one there.

Well, I would make the point to her that—OK, so now I am disgusting. I have no idea why the Minister thinks that, other than her visceral hatred of the National Party.

But the point I am making is that New Zealanders need to be protected from people who have been radicalised overseas and who have gone to the extent, as Gerry Brownlee said, of destroying their passports after making very, very serious threats against New Zealanders, and only when they discover that the world has changed, that the security situation has changed and suddenly it is no longer convenient to be incarcerated in one of those countries, “I would like to play the card of the victim and to be portrayed as the bumbling jihadi.” Well, it is absolutely disgraceful for anybody to accept that description. That man is seriously dangerous, and he imperils the safety of this nation. The very least we should do is have legislation that protects New Zealanders against him and others of a like mind, should they ever be returned to our shores.

This legislation doesn’t cut it. This legislation is weak and ineffective. There are so many holes in it you could drive a bus through it, and, if it is enacted as a result of this very weak process, we will be worse off in our security legislation, not better off. I am desperately disappointed, having been a member of this House for 11 years, that I can’t support a security measure for, I think, the first time in my years as an MP. But I can’t, because I will not imperil the safety of New Zealanders. I will not kowtow to the very weak demands that are being made by this Government’s coalition partners. This is a seriously flawed bill. The very least that could be done is for the Government to adopt the Supplementary Order Papers that are being advanced by the Opposition to strengthen the measure. Should they do that, there may be some hope for it, but, at the moment, it is hopeless.

I call Simon O’Connor. Before I do, this is Part 1 we’re on.

It sure is. Not that I wish to overly affirm it. This definitely is Part 1. I sort of want to pick up on two things which do affect the purpose. Fundamentally, and we’ve heard it from all sides of the House, we want unanimity around matters of national security, and I certainly sit on that side. It’s with a certain reluctance that I do find myself opposed to this bill. There’s been a lot of talk as well of concerns about when this bill should have started, how it should have started, legislation in the past, and even how it’s been handled more recently. I’m not actually particularly interested in that, because the matter at hand is the bill itself.

The fundamental problem that we have is ultimately twofold and begins to manifest itself in Part 1 through the purposes. The first is that, by passing this legislation as it’s currently drafted and with the purposes and other elements including age—and I’ll touch on that in a moment—ultimately, it, I fear, creates a false sense of security: the sense that this will actually achieve an enhanced security arrangement for New Zealanders. In short, it doesn’t, and I hope I might be able to illustrate why that is.

So I suppose the first question to the Minister is: if this passes—and, you know, this is a democracy; it’s a simple numbers game—will there be a move to change the bill as quickly as necessary? As I say, one of my concerns is that, if it passes with these gaps, with these problems, we sort of sit back and New Zealanders sit back and think it’s all fine—we’re all good now. The problem that’s going to come is, ultimately—and it has been one of my concerns through the select committee process—the little gaps we’ve created are exactly the gaps that terrorists like to exploit.

Maybe I could put it this way to the Minister. While there’s a low probability of things going wrong in terms of those gaps—yes, we should know every person coming through. Our intelligence services do an incredible job. There’s a low probability someone’s going to turn up at the border. There’s a low probability they’re going to be under 18 years of age. However, low probabilities also come in this case with high risks. If we, as a House, as a Parliament, and, if I might respectfully say, as a Government, get this wrong, the risks are enormous—the risks are enormous. That’s what’s weighed on my shoulders.

I think one of the reasons why, from my side, we’ve got a bit of an issue around the purposes of the Act—all three are perfectly fine. The fundamental problem, I think, for this side is that clause 3(c), “to support the relevant person’s integration”—because of the arrangement with the Greens to get the necessary votes—is and has become sort of the paramount consideration.

The Green Party’s amendments—and I’ll get to one of them in Schedule 2 at the moment, because I understand it’s referenced in Part 1, puts far too many rights on the returning offender or terrorist. I do have a problem with the Green Party’s stance on a number of issues, and, when it comes to the security of the Realm and intelligence services, I have not forgotten that it is the Green Party which has long advocated for the abolition of our security services. Even through the select committee process—I suppose, if you want to be illustrative—what is put here as the purpose of the bill as incidental to the main purposes has, by the agreement with the Green Party and the changes put forward and the rejection of the National Party changes, effectively, become the main purpose. In other words, focusing on the returning terrorist’s integration, their supposed rights, and due process, as the Green’s understand it, trumps, if you will, the desire to protect the public from terrorism. That’s a problem that I have.

Look, keeping within Part 1 for now, the Minister might want it to be up to him—because I am anticipating some calls, potentially from his own side. I’ve noted they’ve made no calls so far. They have just got offended, which is very “left”. But to just touch on the designated terrorist entity element. It came up a lot in committee. We were very, very clear, and I hope the Minister might affirm this: when we talk about terrorism, it’s very specific groups that are known, acknowledged, named, and are listed under the Terrorism Suppression Act. I mention that because a number of people, including some submitters but certainly some members of committee from the governing side, sort of got a bit caught up that the definition of terrorism should be much, much wider to groups they found just offensive. It’s probably an important distinction I wouldn’t mind—

💬 Louisa Wall: White supremacists, actually.

Actually, someone calls out “White supremacists”, and it’s quite right. But the problem we’ve got—and I need to; it’s why I’m asking the Minister. It’s not that these are not issues, but white supremacism is a broader concept; it’s not a specific group.

Whether we agree with it or not, I think it’s really important—and if the Minister wishes to discuss it—this bill deals with very particular, named groups. Going to much broader concepts, such as white nationalism, cannot be controlled by this. In fact, it leads us down a rather dangerous path. To the point that we can find groups—be they jihadists or otherwise—that we can be very specific about, that is helpful, but I think it would be useful to just draw out why it’s important to have that designated terrorist entity.

Also, the whole fact of terrorism itself—again, the definition as via the Terrorism Suppression Act. It is very, very specific, and I suppose, again, I’m just encouraging the Minister to affirm that, because this bill is not to be used, one way or the other, to try and capture a whole group of people or sets of thoughts which some people would define as terrorism. We’ve already seen in this country the attempt to shut down free speech. Again, I know the Minister is on this side in terms of the way this has been drafted, so I just want that affirmed.

Look, clause 6—the meaning of relevant person. It’s been one of the bottom lines for National. I’m imploring, encouraging, the Minister to take on board a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) on the Table, I suspect, in the name of Mark Mitchell, to have that age lowered—SOP 419. Eighteen is too old—18, Minister, is too old. I touched on it very briefly in an earlier speech. We’ve had people overseas who are under 18 years of age who have been engaged in terrorist activity. We had some very good feedback from Oranga Tamariki. They believe they are capable of being able to work with these young people if they were to come back—stress “if”. We wouldn’t want—again, I suppose, in the low-probability, high-risk framework that I am underpinning this contribution with—to get that wrong. Oranga Tamariki deal with some pretty challenging young people out there, and comparisons could be made.

The second, and probably more fundamental, problem I’ve got is that for the Oranga Tamariki Act to come into being, evidence is required. They have to show that this young person, or under-18-year-old, coming back is a threat to themselves, is a threat to others, has major psychological issues, and so forth. I suppose it’s been one of my contentions, which may or may not have driven officials mad, that that evidence may not be there. In fact, this young person, while being a terrorist, may present as completely and utterly sane. I think it’s one of the great mistakes that we often make—and not everybody in this House—to think that people who are involved in jihadist or terrorist activities are lunatics. Some are, but some are not—they are incredibly rational and incredibly calm and they are following a set of beliefs, wrong as they might be, in a very consistent way. So there’s that concern that, actually, the young person will come back and with a clever lawyer they’ll be able to say, actually, the Act doesn’t apply.

So I’d like to see that changed and SOP 419 adopted to lower the age. It’s even possible that we might be able to put provisos in that, if it is a person between, say, 14 and 18 years of age, a control order applies and there’s mandatory engagement with Oranga Tamariki. It’s not that we’re going to be throwing them into prison. In fact—and this is one of the ironies, and Gerry Brownlee touched on it—there is not a clear array of what those controls are. But I implore and encourage the Minister to consider dropping the age or, at the very least, to explain to the committee why he wishes to hold to this, particularly when we look at other countries. I believe—and I’m happy to be corrected—the likes of Australia, the UK, and Canada have lower ages.

In my last minute, I just want to draw attention to the tabled amendment which is making a single word change to Schedule 2. Am I right to think, Madam Chair, that that does fit in Part 1 because it’s referenced earlier on? I don’t want to—well, correct me if I’m wrong as I carry on, but I think it does apply. Schedule 2 is referenced in Part 1.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yes, it is.

It is? Fantastic. Thank you. Long and the short: this tabled amendment is symbolic in that it’s a Green Party idea to put in the words “poses a real risk of engaging in terrorism-related activities.” It’s in “overview of decisions in making control order” in Schedule 2. The long and the short: it has been a small contention but an important one.

National feels that we should just talk about these people, these terrorists, posing a risk. The Greens, as I understand it, have become obsessed with the word “real”—that it’s a real risk. What it effectively does, in my remaining 17 seconds, is raise the threshold, raises the bar of proof that’s required. They’re not now just a risk but they have to be proven to be a real risk. Again, I’m no lawyer, and they’re cleverer than I, but they can find their ways around that. I think that does not enhance the safety of the country.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to, first of all—out of respect for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little, and hope that he will show the same respect to us on this side of the House—respond to the comments that he made. His opening comment was a backhanded insult to me, intimating that my contribution was not intellectual. I’ve now listened very closely to the Minister responding to the issues that we’ve raised, and it’s flimflam.

There’s been no intellectual effort at all by the Minister in the chair to actually respond to the issues that we’ve raised. I’d ask that he would do that, and I’m going to go back to my original contribution. Before you’re in the chair, I’m going to ask some very simple questions. Number one: if we have someone—and the Hon Gerry Brownlee highlighted this, too—if we have a returning Kiwi arrive at our border that we haven’t already been notified of, which the officials and everyone said may not be likely but it could happen—when you’re dealing with national security, you make sure that you close every hole and every gap. Unlikely is not good enough. For us, it is that we’re going to make sure that we do everything we can to make sure that even the most unlikely scenario that may emerge, we’re prepared and we’re able to deal with that.

So my question is this: if we have someone arrive on our border and we weren’t notified or we become aware of their situation when they arrive, how are they going to be held? If Customs are going to help hold them, under what authority? If they can hold them for only four hours and it takes longer than that to get a control order in place, then how are the police going to be able to surveil and monitor them? Because they’ve said very clearly that they’re very concerned and worried that there will be a gap there and they won’t be able to do that. And why—why—has the Minister not listened to our police when they said that they would welcome the amendment that I spoke to him about right at the very start, in the first meeting that we had, when I said, “We have to give our agencies the ability to be able to detain someone at the border until we can ascertain exactly what their intent is, what their background is, and that gives the High Court time to get a control order in place.”?

How simple is that? That’s looking after the country’s security. I get sent here from Rodney, from my electorate—the officials do a very good job; I want to acknowledge them. They advise us. I will make my own decisions on what I think we need to do for our country and the safety of our country, all right? Because I’ve got kids in my electorate that get on the bus every day, that go to school; their parents want them to be safe. I’ve got people that go out on the weekend to a restaurant. They don’t want to be exposed to the type of attacks that we see around the world.

That’s up to us right here, right now to be vigilant, because I’ll tell you something: the minute you become complacent, Minister, the minute you say, “Oh, well, I think it’s good enough.”, you’ve handed it over to the Greens. The Greens are leading it. No one in this country trusts the Greens with our national security. They haven’t supported a bill in this House for 20 years to do with our national security, and their immediate reaction to this was to say that it was dog-whistling. You’ve had to dumb down this bill to make concessions for them because you wouldn’t work with us. It’s a disgrace.

By the way, one of the comments, Minister, that you made—and I’m going to address that now—is you said that, over on this side of the House, we’re fantasists; this is a fantasy that this could arise. You’re talking about—you’ve got two defence Ministers sat on this side of the Chamber and a Government that deployed our troops into Iraq with a serious job of disabling the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. You’ve been up there with me. The Minister has been up there with the Hon Gerry Brownlee and myself to see the work that they’ve done. They expect us to do our job. Our defence forces up there that have made a huge sacrifice and done an outstanding job that we should all be proud of as a nation expect us to do our stuff.

Do I know anything about the threat? I spent 10 years in the Middle East on the front lines dealing with the war on terrorism. I’ve worked with the Americans, the British, the Japanese, the Danes, the Australians—their defence forces, their intelligence agencies. I’ve worked with the UN. I’ve been to Somalia. I’ve been to Darfur. I didn’t see the Minister in Darfur recovering UN truck drivers taken by the Janjaweed. I haven’t seen him sat in a room getting briefings about the threats from al-Qaeda or al-Shabaab. The threats are real. Don’t for one minute think that we have a cloak of invincibility in New Zealand; we don’t.

So I’d like the Minister to stand and I’d like him to give us a considered and an intellectual response to the questions that I have raised, because they are real and they are a huge gap that you could drive not a small car through; you could drive a truck through it.

On this side of the Chamber, we are not going to accept someone coming back into our country with the ability to walk straight out into the community when we know they’ve already been involved in terror activity and we know that they are a threat to law-abiding Kiwis. I’d ask the Minister to stand and make an intellectual response to the issues that I’ve raised. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In my contribution, I’d like to focus on the meaning of “engagement in terrorism … activities”. That’s a particular phrase used in clause 7. The significance of that in the context of our debate on Part 1 is that what we have is a number of criteria, a number of items in a checklist, any one of which needs to be satisfied in order for a terrorism-related activity to be deemed to exist by our appropriate authorities. I’ll just go through each of those, and then my intention is to link it to clause 6, which talks about the meaning of a “relevant person”.

So the first thing to note is that the definition or the checklist of potential terrorism-related activities is defined in terms of the purposes of the Act. We’ve talked about those already. So that’s the background, and so it is that we see it in clause 7(2), any of the following: “planning or other preparations to carry out the terrorism, whether it is actually carried out or not:”—and that’s a sensible way of formulating the fact that something might be planned and not yet executed but nevertheless represent a threat by the potential that is inherent in that type of planning and preparation. The next is “a credible threat to carry out the terrorism”—again—“whether it is actually carried out or not:”, and then “an attempt to carry out the terrorism:” or, of course, “the carrying out of the terrorism.” So all these different activities are relevant in the context of what we think about as terrorism.

So it is that we then look across to the meaning of “relevant person”. I would just challenge the committee to consider whether or not a person should be defined as relevant in relation to their age, as opposed to their capacity to carry out the particular activities that define terrorism, as we’ve already just heard. My submission to the committee, to the nation, and most particularly to the Minister is that if a person is capable of carrying out those particular things that we define as terrorism, then they are capable of being thought of as a terrorist for the purpose of the Act, for the provisions then to apply that they should be detained for four hours—or, we would say, longer. We would give them a three-day stay, or up to a three-day stay if that amount of time was necessary. And so, given that intention that we carry out the purpose of the Act to protect the New Zealand public from terrorism and those particular acts that constitute it, it should be that alone that is the basis for us considering what a relevant person is.

Accordingly, we shouldn’t look at clause 6(1) and see that the relevant person is, first of all, a person who is 18 years old or older, who may be coming to New Zealand, and so forth. The age of the person is irrelevant in the context of their ability to carry out the acts we are talking about. Now, I appreciate that it might be that it’s less likely that someone who is very young will carry out a credible threat, but that much is already contained. That’s inherent in the definition of the fact that it must be a credible threat to carry out the terrorism.

So that aspect that we would say, “Well, it would be absurd to say, for example, that a five-year-old should be subject to the Act, because a five-year-old is not going to have a credible threat.”—well, that’s fine, because they’re not going to meet the definition of a terrorist activity or terrorism-related activity by the black and white letter of the law as we see later in the Act.

It might be, as well, that the Minister would consider an amendment to the Act that says, “Well, instead of having a brightline cut off on one’s 18th birthday, it might be that prior to that a person would still be applicable to the Act, but for their age to be taken into account in the way that the Act is administered.”

I’m not certain that I feel that that would necessarily be the strongest or most robust way of handling the matter, but I would say that at least it would take into account the fact that a person is young and that the justice system does recognise such a thing as a youth offender or some other description of a person who is not yet 18. So, by doing that, we wouldn’t exclude them from the whole jurisdiction of the Act, but we could say that their age is somehow irrelevant still in the way that they’re treated, but they’re not excluded entirely by that.

That’s really the point that I wanted to make. With it goes the related question, really, of whether the Minister would contemplate an amendment, whether it’s a Supplementary Order Paper that’s already been tabled or something along similar lines, that allows those who are younger than 18 but nevertheless can carry out a credible threat to be treated at least in some way under this law.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to speak quickly to two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs), 418 and 419, that are in my name. I would like to make another appeal to the Minister: it’s never too late to be able to sit down, talk about, and make changes to this bill so that we can all be satisfied it’s strong enough to put the protection in place that we need as a nation.

These SOPs relate to age. My colleague Chris Penk just made a very good contribution on this. The reality of this is that all these Supplementary Order Papers are doing is bringing us in line with Australia and the UK. Australia had to go back and change their legislation because they had a threat from a 15-year-old and they realised that their legislation wouldn’t capture that eventuality. The sad reality, and it is very sad, is that 14-, 15-, and 16-year-olds can be radicalised. They can actually go with their families overseas and be put into that environment—an environment like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)—and they can be radicalised. Unfortunately, they are a danger and they are dangerous and they do present a danger. We see that, sadly, in New Zealand with actual crime, serious assaults, robberies, and even murders committed by juveniles, 14 through to 17 years old. We know that they do have, sadly, the capacity to kill.

So, something short on SOP 419, this provision would be for a control order for a 14-year-old to be for “up to 6 months, up until the age of 18, where the 2-year duration would take effect. Lowering the age to 14 would align the Bill with the Australian legislation. Australia introduced control order legislation for 16-year-olds and over, but in 2016 reduced the age threshold to 14 due to a case of a 15-year-old being radicalised.”, which I mentioned.

So I would appeal to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little. I have appealed to New Zealand First on this and in particular the defence Minister, the Hon Ron Mark, because I honestly felt that, although we disagree on a lot of things, his service overseas, in particular in his own service in our defence force, actually gave him an insight into the types of threats that do exist and are real and that we do face.

I’m disappointed, because I know that he is handling this bill for New Zealand First, that he’s made no major contribution other than a brief 30-second contribution yesterday. I know that he feels he’s a great entrepreneur, but I can tell you that he’s currently our defence Minister. Our New Zealand Defence Force have made a huge sacrifice for us in their deployment to Camp Taji in Iraq. I want to acknowledge them and the outstanding work that they’ve done and the major contribution they’ve made in the dismantling and defeat of ISIS and the caliphates in both Iraq and Syria. They are watching. They understand. They know what the threat is. They know how they think. They know how they operate. Speak to any of our returning New Zealand Defence Force personnel that’ve been up there. They will tell you that there is a genuine threat and that we’re not immune to it. Their expectation is that we put proper legislation in place. I would expect the defence Minister to be supportive of the changes that we want to make to make this bill stronger.

Just very quickly on Supplementary Order Paper 418, “This Supplementary Order Paper amends the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill by amending clause 6 to ensure control orders will capture those convicted of a terrorist offence in New Zealand.” This, again, directly related to what the Australians and British have experienced. “The Bill as introduced does not consider those convicted of a terrorism-related offence in New Zealand as a relevant person to which a control order will apply.” We disagree. We think that this bill should be able to respond to an internal threat.

The amendment will include: “a relevant person on whom a control order is to be imposed is a person who has been convicted in New Zealand of an offence relating to a terrorist act. This amendment would make the legislation align with the Australian version. The Government has assured the Opposition that a similar change is coming with a second tranche of anti-terrorism laws; however, we believe this cannot wait,”. There’s an opportunity now. The Minister alluded to the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 and the changes that he wants to make. There’s a chance right now with his own bill that’s in this committee to make that change.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Resuming on clause 7 of this, Part 1, I just wanted to make a couple of comments before I complete my contributions on this part in relation to what’s described as facilitating or supporting terrorism. The reason this is relevant—or the context, if you will—is that a person engages in terrorism-related activities if they do, among other things, facilitate or support the carrying out of terrorism. It’s helpful, I think, that the bill talks about terrorism being facilitated or supported only if that person knows or ought reasonably to know that terrorism is facilitated or supported. So this is useful to have constructive knowledge as part of the requirement.

That’s helpful from an evidential point of view. It might be that it’s difficult for the New Zealand authorities to prove that a person actually did know that they were facilitating or supporting, but if it’s possible to say that they should have known, presumably given the circumstances and presumably given their level of intellect—maybe competence, as we might say in the law, maybe involvement with terror-related groups—if it’s the case that we can say with some certainty that someone ought to have known that they were, effectively, supporting or facilitating terrorism, then that’s enough under the bill. I think that’s a worthwhile thing for the bill to do in setting a threshold whereby we can draw a line and say that these activities are proscribed by the Act and therefore the provisions to protect New Zealanders apply at that point.

In the same clause, we see that it’s not necessary, however, that specific terrorism needs to be known about by the person who’s said to be a facilitator or supporter. I presume that this means something along the lines of: if a person is a member of an organisation that’s known to carry out terror activities, then notwithstanding that they don’t know or may not have known that a particular terrorist attack would take place at a particular time, in a particular way, none the less they will be caught by the provisions of this Act. So, again, I think that’s a helpful thing. If the Minister’s got any comment to make about the way that I’m interpretating that—excuse me, interpreting that, as to whether I’m correct or incorrect—

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

—I can see that my interpretation of the word “interpret” is incorrect and that’s caused some amusement across the Chamber—then I’ll be happy to take feedback on any of those aspects.

Just to turn to clause 8 reasonably briefly and perhaps unexpectedly, we’ve got a provision there entitled “Status of examples”. It might seem an unusually technical provision for me to focus on, even if not atypical for me to focus on a technical example, but what we’ve got there is not merely an exercise in statutory interpretation where we’re saying an example used in the Act doesn’t limit the provision. That’s actually a significant thing because what it tells us is that we’re concerned with a piece of legislation that does give examples. It does contemplate specific types of situations, but the fact that a provision will apply, regardless of whether it doesn’t seem to be consistent with the examples given or not, really indicates the nature of what we are concerned with here, which is that terrorism has no particular shape that is fixed in time.

“Terrorism” is, broadly speaking, an act, I suppose, of political violence, if you’ll excuse the definition somewhat on the run—

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: That’s a fair interpretation.

—and it’s not in accordance with the Act. It’s a fair interpretation, I hear across the House, thank you—well, from my side of the House, indeed, the Hon Tim Macindoe; I’m no less an authority on language and law than the shadow Attorney-General. It shows that what we’re concerned with here—and this is relevant to the way that we want the law to operate—is we don’t always know what terrorism looks like, and its methods can be unexpected.

It’s a classic case of—and this goes, again, to the way that it’s interpreted and the mechanics of the thing; the unlikelihood or the likelihood or the certainty of it needing to be applied when someone comes into the country—sometimes we know what we don’t know but sometimes we don’t know what we don’t know. We know now that the things that we don’t know will be known to us only when we do know them. So for that reason we need to be somewhat humble when we contemplate our ability as lawmakers to contemplate all the different situations that might arise, all the examples, and we shouldn’t limit ourselves in making provisions that will apply in any situation whatsoever for the protection of New Zealanders.

I move, That the question be now put.

One of the interesting things that came up during the discussions in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—particularly as the select committee’s report was being put together—was the strong suggestion from the Greens that the reason why they had insisted on the dilution of this bill to the almost nullity that it is now was because they did not want to see another situation arise like that endured by Ahmed Zaoui some years ago.

Now, many people will not know that name; there will be others who do recall that name. So he was a gentleman who came to New Zealand in the early 2000s and was detained because he did have Algerian Government convictions against him for engaging in terrorist activities, for being part of what was designated by them as a terrorist organisation. He had previously been an imam and he had stood for election in Algeria with a party that was known to be a fundamentalist Islamic group—very, very fundamentalist. Now, he, eventually, after the civil war started in Algeria, fled the country to Europe. That’s from where he made his way to New Zealand—

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: On a fake passport.

Now, he did come in on a fake passport, and he was detained here. It was a Labour Government in office at the time, and he was detained for quite a long number of years. Eventually, the New Zealand security service decided that perhaps the case they had against him was not as robust as it should be, and their objection to his being granted refugee status was removed. Eventually—interestingly—under a National Government, he got citizenship, and today he does live in New Zealand and is, for all intents and purposes, a law-abiding citizen.

But that circumstance was quite unique; it was one person. While there was no eventual proof that he was a terrorist threat to New Zealand, there was a discernible history that caused the caution and for the authorities, under a Labour Governmental, to arrest him and imprison him for quite a long period of time.

So it seems ridiculous that we have a Labour-led Government now, who have New Zealand First—the party that counts themselves as being a strong law and order party; mind you, they touted themselves as being the farmers’ friend, that didn’t last very long—also agreeing with this odd position being taken by the Green Party. I think the real point here is that all we would want to see is a bill that dots the i’s and crosses the t’s and a bill that is not seen to give the benefit of the doubt to someone turning up at our borders, for whom there is at least some known proof that they have been part of a terrorist organisation, that they have been associated with terrorists, or that they have facilitated or supported terrorist activity. This bill simply is not strong enough.

💬 Louisa Wall: This would allow us to restrict Mark Taylor’s movements.

The whole of the situation around Mr Zaoui took years to resolve, but was it a lack of caution? Was Helen Clark’s Government wrong to detain him? Now, Louisa Wall would now say, “Yes they were, we made a dreadful mistake, and so we shouldn’t have done that, so now for anyone else that comes, we’re going to give them the benefit of the doubt.” More benefit of doubt than for deported New Zealanders from Australia—unbelievable.

💬 Louisa Wall: Clause 14—interim control order.

Well, I would invite the member who’s calling out with almost unintelligible commentary to take a call. Stand up and defend the Government’s position. There’s no defence—there’s no defence. All we’re getting is a constant sort of emotional response to the fact that the National Party hasn’t done what it’s told, and that’s the problem here.

You can clearly see that there are weaknesses and deficiencies that should be strengthened, and no discussion on those, just a sort of cursory, saying, “Oh, well, we’ll make one or two little changes.”, but nothing substantial, and we still end up with the weak bill. We are not going to support it.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 415 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to Part 1 be agreed to.