Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill

Mōrena mai tātou katoa i runga i te tukunga iho o rātou mā te wāhi ngaro, tēnā koutou.

[Good morning everyone under the guidance from above, greetings.]

The House is resumed. Members, when we rose last night we were on the third reading of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill. We’d just completed call No. 6, now it’s call No.7.

Mōrena, Mr Speaker. Thank you. I stand to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill, the third reading. Before I start, I’d like to acknowledge the victims of the Christchurch massacre in 2019, as well as those that were affected by the LynnMall terrorist attack at the beginning of this month.

I think it is important that we do look to change our terrorism laws. There were some gaps in there that had been needing to be fixed, and the ACT Party were definitely wanting to get in behind and support that. But what we don’t agree with is the time frame being brought forward, and this is why we are opposing supporting this bill. We believe—actually feel—that the movement of this bill at speed is virtue signalling, and it’s virtue signalling off the back of these terror attacks. Now, we had that happen back in March and the effects of rushed legislation are still being felt by many, to the point where some of our administrators are struggling to administer the law that was rushed so quickly. So we think that, when it comes to terrorism, we need to ensure that we have the ability to be able to go through a good lawmaking process and make sure individuals, minorities, and ethnic communities are not caught up in the speed with which we legislate.

Members opposite have said that we went through a thorough process. Well, we did, and thank you to the Ministry of Justice and the Parliamentary Counsel Office for coming up with some of the changes that were needed. But it wasn’t, in my opinion, thorough enough. The bill itself was meant to be reported back to the House on 5 November—quite fitting, really, when you think of terror attacks and Guy Fawkes. Maybe they didn’t want to have it on that day and brought it forward, but, actually, it just comes back to virtue signalling.

I asked the Minister whether or not there were aspects in this bill that were going to make New Zealand safe and to stop a LynnMall terror attack—in fact, I asked the Minister “Is any chance that the aspects that we’ve changed in this bill would have prevented the LynnMall terror attack?” He, effectively, said he couldn’t answer that. So we’re asking again: why did we have to rush this through, when, in actual fact, it wasn’t going to, or couldn’t, make a change to what happened on 3 September?

We are quite worried—the ACT Party—about the disruption to civil liberties. We have that with the increase in the ability to use the search and surveillance laws—surveillance we see, quite often, of people just going about their normal everyday business. While we are glad that we did reach agreement across the Justice Committee on changing the word “fear” to “intimidation”—that came out of a good, robust debate—I still wonder at lowering that threshold from terror to intimidation and how it will affect those civil liberties of the people that we are trying to protect.

There is, obviously, quite a number of concerns that have been raised across this House. We talk about the speed. We talk about the impediment on civil liberties and freedoms. Our Green Party colleagues also raised a number of issues, and I think that those issues could have been thought out, discussed, and debated if we had the opportunity to go through to 5 November and see this bill without it being rushed through Parliament.

The last time that we spoke with legal experts on the bill, they were not convinced. They were worried that we had impeded on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—and this was the human rights commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner, and the New Zealand Law Society. So we’ve had organisations that did raise some concerns, as well as two parties here.

Now, ACT was prepared to streamline this bill so that we could get some of those gaps that had been identified fixed, and then continue to work on the areas that both the Green Party and ACT had concerns with. But we were not able to do that and that’s why we are objecting to the process of pushing this bill through so quickly. It would have been about making sure that we could keep the country safe by filling in those gaps but still allowing the democratic process of addressing the concerns that other parties have had.

This bill is so vast in its scope that when we look at recommendation 18, made after the royal commission inquiry, we see that this bill goes further—a lot further—than recommendation 18. That’s why we feel that it actually warranted a better, longer, and fuller discussion. We feel that we may not have been able to find that fine balance between protecting the community and that community losing some of their civil liberties just because the process was, ultimately, rushed. The line has been crossed, and this Government has deemed it to be justified, and we don’t think that that’s justifiable. Virtue signalling is not good lawmaking, and the people of New Zealand deserve better from us as lawmakers. We oppose this bill in its third reading. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Tēnā tātou katoa i tēnei ata. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to take a brief call on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill. It was a privilege to sit on the Justice Committee, ably chaired by Ginny Andersen. It was a very interesting select committee process—the submissions that we received but also the engagement, thorough engagement, with the officials as we discussed and debated, questioned and probed—in particular, for me, the definitions of “terror” and of “intimidation”; that was one that we spent a lot of time on. I really appreciated the efforts of the officials to help us truly understand the difference between those, and where we landed, with agreement, with the Opposition, the National Party, in terms of recommending, as a way forward, that “intimidation” be the definition that we use.

We have this legislation because of a recommendation that came out of the royal commission into the March 15 attacks, and it was really unfortunate that during the select committee process, we had another situation occur. But, prior to that situation, we had actually heard all of the submissions, we had received the advice from the officials, and we had had a lot of discussion and debate, so I reject the previous member’s, Nicole McKee’s, assertions that this is virtue signalling; it certainly wasn’t—it was already a process well in train, and it was to try and prevent that very situation that occurred.

I do not want to prolong this debate any further. I want to make sure that we have this legislation in place so that we can have better protections for terrorism in Aotearoa. Kia ora.

This is a split call. I call the Hon Michael Woodhouse—five minutes.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to join with colleagues across the House in extending concern, support, and aroha for all of those people who have been affected by terrorism and terror attacks, not just here in New Zealand but right around the world.

Look, there’s no doubt that in my lifetime New Zealand has changed. It’s changed overwhelmingly for the better, in terms of our understanding of, and diversity of, people and views, but despite that, there is a strong perception, which I understand, that there is an increasing intolerance of difference—difference of view, difference of belief, difference of appearance. We get taller buildings but we get shorter tempers; we get wider streets but narrower minds. Even though there is such an enormous access to knowledge, there is a growing ignorance, actually, of our history and of the history of other parts of the world.

So it’s easy to have a fairly jaundiced view of society at large. I don’t share that. In the previous Government, it was my privilege to be the Minister of Immigration—I was for nearly five years—and it took me into parts of our community that I would never otherwise have seen, and that was a huge privilege. I have to say, some of those communities had significant challenges, challenges that we as a Parliament and as a democracy need to overcome.

But I have a much more sanguine view of where New Zealand is at, and that is actually backed up by data that is collected. It’s important, I think, to recognise that New Zealand ranks first in the world for celebrating indigenous culture. By no means are we perfect, but being first is a pretty good start. In terms of tolerance of immigrants, we rank third behind Canada and, I think, Iceland, in the manner in which we accept immigrants into New Zealand.

So there is, I think, reason to be more optimistic, and this debate has been a real challenge, I think, in the passage of this legislation because it deals with such difficult issues. But I don’t share the views of Ms McKee either, actually. As Willow-Jean Prime has said, I don’t think this is virtue signalling, but I don’t think we should be naive to think that the passage of legislation is going to change behaviour or belief. That’s where society comes in. It can raise conversations. It can highlight areas where there are problems. But it won’t change behaviour, belief, and culture. The public need to do that, and we do that with conversation, with understanding of difference and the reason for it, and I think we are on the right path.

I think it’s also worth pointing out that the terrible incidents that we have experienced in New Zealand, as others have pointed out, have been perpetrated by people who are not part of large groups who hold these heinous views, and, actually, that makes it quite a bit more difficult to detect. But the parts of this legislation that criminalise behaviour that might be being conducted by what’s known as “the lone wolf” will certainly assist; it won’t solve, but it will certainly assist in enabling society to condemn that sort of behaviour more appropriately. I hope we never ever again see the events of March 2019 and of what has happened in the last month, or so, in New Lynn.

This is a good start and I commend the bill.

I call Rawiri Waititi—five minutes.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I rise to speak to the third reading of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill. I want to begin by extending my aroha—the aroha of Te Paati Māori—to victims of the terrorist attack in New Lynn. Our aroha goes out to the victims of the March 15 attack in Ōtautahi, which was the original catalyst for bringing this legislation before the House. We unequivocally condemn all acts of violence and terror. That is why, when we think about the victims of terrorism, our thoughts also go back to generations of tangata whenua and first-nations peoples who have suffered from this country’s history of State-sponsored terror.

For our people, this has been a reality since the colonisers reached these shores. I think about the women and children brutally shot down and burnt alive in Rangiaowhia on the Sabbath in 1864. This was terrorism. I think about the people of Parihaka, who were invaded, raped, and dispossessed in the systemic campaign of terror in 1881. This was terrorism. I think about my Tūhoe people at Maungapōhatu, under the leadership of Rua Kēnana in 1916, who was arrested, his son murdered along with others, and women raped and terrorised for exercising their mana motuhake. This was terrorism. I think about the atrocities inflicted on our tangata moana, our Moana-nui-a-Kiwa whanaunga in the Dawn Raids between 1974 and 1976. This was terrorism. I think again of my Tūhoe people as they once again suffered State-sponsored terror when, in 2007, heavily armed officers, working like assassins in a foreign war, stormed school buses in Ruatoki, locked kaumātua in garages all day, and, essentially, put Te Urewera under martial law. This was terrorism. I think about my personal experience of the raid by the New Zealand Navy and the New Zealand Police on my people of Te Whānau-ā-Apanui in 2010, when we peacefully protested against deep-sea oil drilling company Petrobras in the Raukūmara trench, within our tribal territory, when our skipper of our iwi boat was arrested and left two of our iwi kaumātua to navigate their way back to the port in Tauranga. This was terrorism.

All these acts were enabled by legislation that passed through this House, laws that have labelled our people terrorists. The recent act of State-sponsored terror on Tūhoe was done under the guise of anti-terror legislation, which goes to show just how dangerous these laws can be and that they can perpetuate the violence they seek to end. One of our strongest concerns with this bill is the new planning and preparation offence, which is intended to be used to prosecute would-be terrorists before they’ve even committed any violence. It is quite likely that if this proposed legislation was on the books in 2007, particularly this offence, the State would have had legal power to convict my Tūhoe whanaunga. We saw that they tried their very best to get Terrorism Suppression Act offences to stick. In the end, they failed. They resorted to firearms charges. It would have made it far easier for the State to succeed against our people if they could have simply alleged that they were thinking and feeling, and use the evidence in court.

Legal and human rights experts, including the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties, have expressed serious concerns with the way that this bill attacks fundamental human rights and freedoms. It’s pointed out in their submission: “Conspiring to commit an offence has always been an offence in Aotearoa. Indeed that is the name of section 310 of the Crimes Act 1961”. Other provisions are also deeply concerning, including the power to search properties, vehicles, and individuals without warrant.

Once again, this Government is creating laws that disregard basic legal and moral protections of rights, including privacy, that are the bedrock of our human rights framework. We all support keeping our people safe. We all want a country free of violence, discrimination, racism, and terror in all forms, but the way to achieve that is not through Draconian legislation. Our people know, without a shadow of a doubt, that this will be used against the surveillance and criminalisation of tangata whenua and minorities; hence why the minor parties stand in solidarity today. Shame on this House today for supporting such a fundamental erosion of human rights that we hold dear in Aotearoa. Te Paati Māori is proud to oppose this bill. Kia ora tātou.

Salaam alaikum, Mr Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to take a call on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill at third reading. As we prepare to pass this bill today, I too wanted to pay my tribute and my aroha to the victims of the LynnMall terrorist attack in September, earlier this month, and also to the victims of 15 March 2019, and also to the victims of global terrorism who have been victims of evil attacks all over the world.

Today is a good day. By the time we pass this bill, New Zealanders across the country will be reassured and they will be feeling safe. While this bill alone won’t stop future attacks, combined with other measures it will do the job and it will keep us safe.

I’d like to comment on the members of the ACT Party who said that this bill will never stop the attacks alone. This bill was not designed to stop attacks itself, but combined with other measures it will, because it simply provides our law enforcement agencies with a clear and legal authority to prevent and disrupt terrorism-related activities by creating new offences to criminalise terrorist activities. This is major and it does this by extending the control order regimes. It’s a clear message to those who dare to want to hurt us, to unleash attacks on our country. Terrorism has changed its face, it has changed the way it operates; organised terror groups are not the only threats any more. Lone wolves pose the biggest threat today, so our laws have to reflect this.

The two terrorist attacks committed in our land—by doing so, they tried to change the way that we live our lives. They wanted to take away our sense of safety. They tried to shake our trust in our law enforcement agencies. They tried to impose ideology that’s not welcome in our country, but we stood firm. We refused to be intimidated. We rejected the notion of being divided as a nation, as they wanted us to be. That doesn’t mean that we should be complacent and relaxed. We’ve got work to do. We need to consolidate our laws, give our law enforcement tools to protect us to do their job, and that’s exactly what we’re doing today.

I was so proud of the way that our country responded to all the attacks, but I’m also proud today as we prepare to pass this bill—I’m again proud. This bill was carefully considered and the policy in the bill was developed through a comprehensive process to make sure it doesn’t compromise rights recognised in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I’d like to thank the Justice Committee for the good work that they have done considering this bill. I’d like to thank the submitters. I’d like to thank all the staff that worked hard on this. I’d also like to thank the National Party for their positive contribution, especially the Hon Simon Bridges and his positive remarks last night. Lastly, I’d like to thank the Minister of Justice, the Hon Kris Faafoi, who has done such a good job in putting this together. This is a hard-working Minister who has just today put out another announcement on immigration, and we couldn’t be more proud. This Government is moving on with the mahi quietly—talking less, working more. With that, I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Nei koutou mā. September 11, 20 years ago—or 9/11 as it’s well-known globally—was a moment in our living time when our world changed. An act of terror froze the moment in time, and the chilling effects of that have been prolonged and have struck at the Western World’s sense of security and freedoms, with that strike to be counter-attacked. So I take a stand this morning to strike back against acts of terrorism. Jointly with the Government, the National Party is supporting the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill.

The contributions in the House last night, and with more to come this morning, come from perception and perspective. The reality is that we have a duty as lawmakers and as legislators, and the reality that our world is faced with is that our safeties, our freedoms, and our security have been under attack. I take this call addressing perspective and perception but also dealing with the fact and the reality that the safety and security of New Zealanders is front and foremost.

I was reminded this morning, in reflecting on what happened 20 years ago, and I distinctly recall being woken by our 9-year-old son. He came to his mother and father and said, “You must come and see this on TV, Mum and Dad.” We saw the reality of the strikes on liberty and freedom in New York City, which is symbolic with its Statue of Liberty there. We witnessed towers tumbling and freedom crumbling and a strike at the heart of the Western World and at the perception of freedoms and security.

It struck me also this morning that 20 years later, on 9/11, little did I realise not only the impact that morning had had on the world—global—sense of security but how it impacts and imprints on each of us personally, and it struck me that the reason my son happens to be living and working in New York is because of what he witnessed, I believe, as a 9-year-old child. He’s now working in a space addressing world peace and global security.

So I come to the purpose of this bill now, which is that in New Zealand we deem it a duty and the obligation to better prevent and respond to terrorism and associated activities. We have heard contributions in the House in this third reading of the bill about the impact of the strike at New Zealand’s sense of security with the recent events that have occurred, most recently in New Lynn, and then, more recently, what triggered a reset of New Zealand counter-terrorism legislation with the Christchurch mosque murders on 15 March 2019. So that is the contemporary realisation of terrorism that is in our world and that is on our front doorstep at home, here in Aotearoa. But I also reflected as well that New Zealand’s history is one where we do have acts of terrorism that have been perpetuated through the development of our nation. The Māori Party referred to some of those incidents, and, again, we speak from the imprint of what’s impacted on our lives and on our whakapapa. So counter-terrorism is a reminder to New Zealanders listening in.

We have a history that dates back to Parihaka on 5 November 1881. The Māori Party’s Rawiri Waititi has talked about the impact of the Tūhoe raids on his people. That was on 15 October 2007, under a Labour Government. That struck at the heart and the core of the local people’s community’s sense of freedom but also trust. The contributions this morning have talked about the relevance and the importance of humanitarian rights and responsibilities, and that has been front of mind for the contributions and the submissions and the learnings by the members of the Justice Committee.

Part of the history of terrorism here in Aotearoa New Zealand also—and I distinctly remember this; I was a law student—was on 13 November 1990. In the Aramoana massacre, 13 people were killed. One of those was a police constable on the front line in defence of his local community. And just yesterday, we had the New Zealand Police commemoration day of all of those front-line police officers and also employees who have acted in defence of our nation.

Then, again, that moves me to the most recent event of terrorism, a strike at the heart of our sense of security here in Aotearoa New Zealand: the LynnMall attack. So the terrorism is real. We tuck it into the back of mind, and then it just propels and projects us into this sense of reality when it strikes at the heart of what’s happening in our communities. So to hear from the ACT Party, saying that there’s been insufficient time for this bill to be considered carefully, I do not agree with.

The history of this and the reason for this bill coming to be is that it’s an omnibus bill that is reflecting on the global impact of terrorism as it strikes us on our front yard. So there has been sufficient time, because post-9/11 in 2001, the United Nations presented its resolution. That resolution was Resolution 1373, and the history of this is annexed in Schedules 4D and 4E in Schedule 2 of the bill, soon to be law. That Resolution 1373 in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 just declared the necessity for member States to cooperate in order to prevent and to suppress terrorism. Then, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2178 of 24 September 2014, again, propelled and projected New Zealand to come up to speed with its legislation, because we were behind the eight ball on that And, as a result of that, there was the commission of inquiry which had been triggered by the Christchurch attack on 15 March 2019. So for the ACT Party to say that there’s been insufficient time for the consideration of New Zealand’s counter-terrorism legislation is not correct and it is not fact.

It is all well and good for members of Parliament to speak about perception and speak about feelings and emotion, and that’s not to say that we don’t feel it or that it doesn’t impact or imprint on our lives. But the reality is that we have to deal with facts, and the fact is that we have a responsibility, as members of Parliament and as a representation of our nation, to advocate for the protection of rights and freedoms but also, importantly, for safety and security. That’s what this Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill does. Being an omnibus bill, it factors in the counter-terrorism legislation that we’ve had well and truly entrenched in our country—the Terrorism Suppression Act being but one of those pieces of legislation.

The commission of inquiry reported back in November 2020 the relevance and significance of New Zealand to come up to speed and pace with the United Nations Security Council global protections. That is what this Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill does. We have a responsibility as a nation to provide for the safety and protection of our citizens.

In closing, I wish to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Mark Mitchell. He’s taken the lead on this and he’s front-footed it. National has appointed him as the spokesperson for counter-terrorism. He has vast experience on the ground. He would very much have liked to have been on the ground today in Parliament to commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.