Finlayson Christopher: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFinlayson Christopher: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 25 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:781. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service)on behalf of theMinister for National Security and Intelligence: I move That the Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported by Tuesday 2 December 2014 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House.This omnibus bill responds to the rapid evolution of the threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters and other violent extremists in the West. These are not New Zealand’s problems alone but New Zealand is not immune from them. As the Prime Minister outlined in his speech at Victoria University a few weeks ago agencies have a watch list of between 30 and 40 people of concern in the foreign fighter context with another 30 to 40 requiring further investigation. Our independently assessed domestic threat level was recently increased from “very low” to “low”—a terrorist attack is possible but not likely. Other Governments in Australia Canada the United Kingdom and elsewhere have now sought to amend their legislation in this area. All Governments are very mindful of that once-dreadful boast of the IRA that terrorists only have to be lucky once.We too are seeking to amend our legislation in this area not only to bring it in line with what is happening in similar countries but also in line with the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2178 which urges member States to restrict the movement of foreign terrorist fighters and ensure that their legislation is up to scratch. The Government agreed to a targeted review covering four narrow and targeted areas: first the capacity the capabilities and statutory powers of the New Zealand SIS to investigate and monitor suspected and returning foreign terrorist fighters and other violent extremists; second the Government’s statutory powers to restrict and disrupt the ability of suspected foreign terrorist fighters to travel to conflict zones; and third whether or not specific criminal offences should be introduced to address these areas. The review did not recommend any changes to criminal offences at this time. What we are left with is a narrowly focused set of changes that will ensure that the SIS has the tools it requires to address the foreign terrorist fighter threat to our land.Before I turn to the main provisions of the bill I want to say something about the legislative context. At the end of the debate I will move that the bill be reported to the House by Tuesday 2 December. This allows obviously a much shorter time in a select committee than is usual. The reason for this of course is the urgent nature of the review and the fact that we must make a number of changes to legislation now. The bill was provided to a number of organisations late last week including the New Zealand Law Society and the Legislation Advisory Committee. The Government has been particularly concerned to ensure that other parties receive briefings about the review and legislation early and to whatever extent they have required.The bill has a sunset clause. There has been some comment about the date of that sunset clause but we have to acknowledge that there is going to be a comprehensive review of all this legislation which must begin no later than June 2015. Any changes recommended in that review—and hopefully they would be able to be in force by say the end of 2016—will supersede what we are debating today. The legislative product of that review will have a full select committee hearing and I know the select committee will do a very good job on the present legislation in the time it has available.In the time I have remaining I want to turn to some of the proposed changes—colleagues of mine who speak after me can go into these areas in greater detail—in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 2178. The changes proposed fall into two categories: restricting and disrupting travel and monitoring and investigating foreign terrorist fighters. In the first area the bill allows the Minister of Internal Affairs to set a cancellation period of up to 3 years on a New Zealand passport rather than the current 12-month period. This would occur only in a situation where the Minister is satisfied that the person continues to pose a danger to New Zealand or any other country. The bill also allows the temporary suspension of a passport or travel document for no more than 10 working days. In the second area the bill provides the SIS with the ability under warrant to undertake visual surveillance in a private setting or involving trespass on to a private property. It is modelled on the existing powers in the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. It is nothing really that the police in special circumstances cannot do already.I want particularly to refer to clause 9. These provisions deal with intelligence collection and visual surveillance for a period of no more than 48 hours in situations of emergency or urgency. I think these are the provisions that have generated the most comment to date. On one level what is proposed here is nothing new: a similar regime for surveillance without a warrant in situations of emergency or urgency was contained in the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. I have had a good look at that section and I have suggested that what is proposed in this bill contains more safeguards. The oversight and protections proposed in this bill are far more extensive than those in the Search and Surveillance Act. So for example the regime would be subject to ministerial oversight and the Minister must be informed within 12 hours. Any information collected must be destroyed if that is what the Minister directs and the inspector-general must be notified of authorisations and the annual report has to set all this information out.Can I give you a hypothetical example of where such a power could be required. Let us say reporting indicated that later today an individual was planning to depart New Zealand to travel to Syria. That individual had previously been unknown to the SIS but new reporting indicated the individual had boasted to others about going on a jihad. There would be insufficient time to get the traditional warrant together in the 8 hours before the individual left the country and to bring together the Minister and the commissioner for warrants. In this hypothetical case an emergency authorisation could enable the intercept of communications to take place so that an assessment could be made of the threat and potentially support the cancellation of the individual’s passport. I—and where appropriate the commissioner—may direct the NZ SIS to discontinue that activity under the authorisation and destroy any information.I acknowledge however that any expansion of the powers of the State in this critical area must be very carefully thought through and a number of people who will make submissions will I am sure have genuine concerns. So I approach these provisions with an open mind. I want the select committee to look very closely at them and to consider any additional safeguards that it thinks are useful. I commend the bill to the House. I thank members particularly members of the Labour Party for their engagement today and I emphasise that I am open to discussions with Mr Little or any of his team on any of these matters because I think that in relation to clause 9 it is critically important that we get it as right as we can. I commend the bill to the House.