Bridges Simon: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBridges Simon: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 25 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:788. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources):It is really a privilege to speak on what is a serious bill and a very serious topic that is going around the world at the moment. Parliaments certainly in the common law world are grappling with legislation like this. I think it does have the capacity to show parliaments and this one as well at their best. We have got to hear so far universally thoughtful contributions from members—not necessarily in entire agreement but certainly in agreement on the main issues and risks and on what it is that this sort of legislation should be trying to achieve. Like my colleague Amy Adams I would say that this should be and I think it has the capacity to be so far—certainly with Labour National and other parties—a bipartisan issue where reasonable people can come together and work through the issues constructively to find common ground.I accept some of the things that David Shearer has said that there is this effectively balancing between the risks and the need for protection and security in New Zealand vis-à-vis also those undeniable and fundamental rights of privacy and freedom and the freedoms that we as New Zealanders again as Amy Adams said sometimes do take for granted—the rights and freedoms that should be cherished. It is a sort of balance again or an argument again between not being complacent about the very real risks that although in this country are not at the level of risks in some other countries such as the United Kingdom which very recently raised its threat profile again are nevertheless risks. It is about not being complacent about those and balancing those against not having an over-the-top burdensome approach where there is no freedom to do anything because we are tying everything up.Well we of course are very far from that in this bill. We have a targeted approach to identified risks. In my portfolio of transport for example some have called for universal screening at all airports in New Zealand. In my view although we should not be complacent about the risks around all airports in New Zealand and although in a sense we are always reviewing airport security we would not want to act disproportionately. We would not want to have an untargeted approach where the risk clearly does not justify it and where it is out of proportion to the threats. This bill I think is not in that category. As I have said it is one where we are acting as a country in a targeted fashion against identified risks to keep New Zealanders safe.I did not agree with David Shearer in his comments around why now. Why does this have to be passed before the end of the year? I say this quite simply to David Shearer and I reiterate what the Attorney-General has said—as the IRA once said: “We only have to be lucky once.”Hon Phil Goff: Yeah but the English are giving their Parliament until May next year on the same legislation.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: That is not to say Mr Goff that we should be alarmist. That is not to say that we should be anything other than realistic about the threats that are there but I do think it means that where we have had a review and where we are in a position to act we should. That is what we are doing and that is I think a strong enough reason to ensure we do work on this expeditiously. There will be time enough actually to take on board the legitimate concerns that David Shearer has raised for example and to work through those at the select committee.I know that the Attorney-General is famously a reasonable man who has according to a discussion I have just had with him been listening to some of the critique on the technical parts of the bill. I have no doubt that there is the capacity for movement on some of that to ensure that this is the best law that it can be for New Zealand and New Zealanders.Of course this bill does focus on our ability to manage the threats posed by foreign terrorist fighters. The issue of foreign terrorist fighters is fast evolving as a threat to New Zealand as well as other countries. I think we all know now that it is the top priority for our SIS. The objectives of this bill are to counter the threats posed by foreign terrorist fighters by providing statutory powers: firstly to investigate and monitor suspected and returning foreign terrorist fighters and other violent extremists; and secondly to restrict and disrupt the ability of suspected foreign terrorist fighters to travel to conflict zones.I think there is no question and I believe that for the most part this Parliament takes national security and the obligations around that very seriously indeed. New Zealand is no longer the benign environment in terms of threats that many people think it is. We do have as a Parliament as well as a Government an obligation to ensure that New Zealanders are safe here at home and abroad bearing in mind my comments about doing that in the most targeted proportionate way that we can. We do not want to see as a country New Zealand or New Zealanders as the target or source of any sort of violent extremism. Parliament has to take responsible proportionate steps in the short term—and it is doing so in this bill—to deal with the immediate threat to our national security.It is the rapidly changing security environment that really is driving the legislative changes. As I have already said the bill is tightly focused so as to address the known and the current risks ahead of a more comprehensive review of the core New Zealand intelligence community next year. And of course it is that review and putting in place the recommendations that will come from it that mandate the 2018 sunset clause in this bill. If we could have the review concluded and have the changes before then well that date could move as well. But we are focused on responsibly addressing the risks that the rapid rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) present to us locally regionally and—as we know not through this bill necessarily but through other efforts; humanitarian military and so on—abroad as well.I echo the comments of David Shearer about the rise of ISIL. Here we have a situation where there are concerns that there are New Zealanders who are currently offshore fighting who are interested in travelling for the purposes of fighting or who have returned from fighting and are radicalising others and becoming radicalised themselves. That sort of threat whilst not to be overdone is real and present and justifies the response in this bill. I know that although the bill will have a relatively brief time before the select committee all members there will put their diligent and thoughtful minds to this issue and that at the end of the select committee’s consideration we will have a bill that makes New Zealand a more safe country for New Zealanders.