Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Enough has been said about this legislation. I know there is vast support, and I commend it to the House.

There is efficiency and then there’s that. I get paid by the word; this is going to be longer. We often get asked—actually, don’t we, as politicians?—particularly when you’re in Opposition, why don’t you do stuff with the Government? Why do you always oppose them on everything? Well, on this bill, on this issue of national security, we have done it together. We commend this bill. We commend the Government for taking the Opposition along with their thinking, which was informed by tragic events and the need to balance protection of our people with civil liberties. The National Party believe it’s been a robust process, good thinking. We’ve landed in the right place and we commend the bill to the House.

I commend this bill to the House.

I commend this bill to the House.

I commend this bill to the House—but I also do feel as though I should say at least a little bit more. The point, I think, has been well made, if briefly, that much has been said about this bill already—obviously, at previously readings, and including as recently as last night—so I won’t take longer than is necessary, I think, to draw the House’s attention to a couple of points that I think are significant in what we are looking to achieve. Others have described the mechanism that is at play here, and we’ve heard described quite movingly and importantly the reasons that it is needed, in the context of a couple of terrorism incidents quite specifically. Of course, when we are making law, we can’t make it for particular persons or entities—except in a private Act, of course, which is separate, but certainly we don’t want to do that in any negative way. So, while we do very much have in mind the atrocities—or certainly the atrocity of March 15th, and obviously also the deeply adverse events of the New Lynn Lynnmall terror attack—nevertheless we have to make a law that, of course, will be robust and reasonable across other people at other times.

So I do just want to draw attention to the fact that the Attorney-General report on this matter gave thoughtful consideration to some of these big-picture issues. It talks about the fact that there are substantial limits on freedom, using language like “a significant limit on the freedom of movement”—and, of course, that language is from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—and the Attorney-General seemed to conclude that a 12-hour detention time would, in fact, not really amount to a detention per se but would be sort of more in the nature of a curfew. It talked about the pressing social objective of enabling the police to prevent acts of terrorism—so, obviously, that’s the main public policy objective that we start with, before we then start saying, “Well, are limits on it justified?” And obviously the House as a whole—and I accept not all parties, but the House as a whole—has agreed with that position of Mr Parker. It’s talked about a justified and proportionate limit on freedoms. Often, we hear the discussion in New Zealand Bill of Rights Act reports about doing the minimum thing necessary to reduce rights, given the aims in a policy sense. Well, in this case, the Attorney-General is saying quite explicitly—and quite rightly in my view—there are high public utility values, which is the risk of terrorism, and therefore the measures undertaken in the bill are justified for that reason.

So, with those reflections on how the bill operates in our more general human rights framework, and acknowledging the arguments that have been made the other way, nevertheless National has supported and will continue to support, including in our final vote in the third reading—in just a few moments, I suspect—this bill, and we commend it to the House.

Mr Speaker, thank you. It is a pleasure to take the final call on the third reading of what is a very important bill for this Parliament, the Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill. May I just begin by acknowledging the Minister of Justice, Kiri Allan, and the Justice Committee and officials, who have done a large amount of work on this bill.

I’d just like to begin my short contribution by acknowledging the context that has led to this bill being developed. Everyone in this House and those watching will be mindful of the work programme that this Government put in place following the terror attacks in Christchurch on 15 March 2019, and the need for us to ensure that we have a robust system in place in order to protect New Zealanders but that also balances the rights of individuals. I just acknowledge the comments from the previous speaker Chris Penk around the importance of this Parliament getting that balance right, and, in my view, this bill does exactly that.

But further to that context, we will all also remember the horrific events that occurred at the Lynnmall supermarket, and that, following that, there needed to be a review from Cabinet about how the control order regime could be strengthened. As a former organiser of supermarket workers, can I just acknowledge many of my former members at Countdown supermarket, those who suffered as a result of that terrible attack, and also all those who witnessed it—those who were shopping that day, going about their business, and who, rightfully, will be asking what more could Parliament and this Government do to ensure that we have as many protections as possible for people.

So what the bill does is it amends the regime for imposing control orders in the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Act 2019. These amendments will strengthen the control orders regime, and include some lessons learned from the one control order made to date in New Zealand. The bill includes the following changes to the control orders regime. It expands the eligibility criteria for those who can be covered by a control order to include if the person has received a conviction for objectionable publications that promote torture, extreme violence, or cruelty. This is in addition to the current criteria, which includes a conviction for objectionable publications that promote terrorism.

Further, it expands the eligibility criteria to include people sentenced to home detention and community-based sentences. Currently, it is only limited to sentences of imprisonment. It allows sentence conditions and control orders to exist concurrently for these offenders, to ensure a consistent approach to risk management.

The bill allows for greater judicial discretion when setting control order restrictions, to ensure they can be more closely tailored to risk. It provides, in more detail, requirements of the following kinds: requirement that the relevant person reside at and remain at a specified address, and electronic monitoring requirements. And it makes name suppression requirements more flexible so that an appropriate balance can be struck between preventing the glorification of terrorism activity and reassuring the public that a known terrorism risk is being appropriately managed.

I want to just note some changes that were made by the select committee during the process that this bill went through at select committee. It originally applied to young people designated as terrorists, serving a sentence of imprisonment in a youth justice residence. This was on the basis that youth justice residences have similar restrictions to adult custodial settings. The committee received additional advice from officials demonstrating that youth justice residences are more open environments. This means that the Prime Minister would be able to more accurately assess whether a designated young person continued to pose a risk carrying out terrorist acts. As such, the select committee has recommended that the bill should only apply to young people who are in a Corrections facility or police custody.

Since the bill was introduced in October, the security information and proceedings legislation has been passed and will come into effect later this year. These Acts provide designated persons with the right to request a summary of classified information when it is used to inform a decision about them. The committee has recommended changes to align the bill with this legislation as it will commence prior to those Acts coming into force.

I think we can all agree that in this country we need to balance the freedoms of people and their rights, while also ensuring that we protect against the growing risks of terrorist acts as a result, particularly, of the exposure of people to extreme materials on platforms like social media. This is an excellent bill that balances the rights and protections and the need for protection of New Zealanders and I commend it to the House.

The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 9 May 2023. Have a good weekend, everyone.

The House adjourned at 4.58 p.m.