Little Andrew: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee[Sitting date: 09 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1209. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition):I acknowledge the contribution of the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service to this debate on the Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill. I acknowledge from the outset that the Labour Party will support the legislation but I want to take a moment to explain the basis on which we do so.The Minister acknowledged that this bill is about meeting a UN mandate for nation States to take measures to restrict the movements of people travelling to become foreign terrorist fighters as the UN describes them. The original bill provided for greater and more intrusive powers for the Security Intelligence Service—and specifically surveillance on private properties in the original bill for up to 48 hours—and also access to Customs Service information that hitherto the SIS had not had. The original bill also provided for longer cancellation of passports of persons suspected of being a danger to security and also the suspension of passports even while such a person was overseas.In considering its stance on a bill of this nature—that is one dealing with the safety and security of New Zealanders and also providing for greater powers of intrusion—the Labour Party has considered a number of factors. Firstly is there a safety and security threat or risk that this legislation meaningfully addresses? If not we would not support it. Secondly if there is a legitimate threat or risk what is the minimum level of additional intrusive powers necessary to deal with the threat or the risk?Before we even get into these considerations we also have to consider the process this legislation has taken. On that score there is no other description for it: the process has been appalling it has been shoddy and it has deprived many New Zealanders of their legitimate right to have a say on the legislation. As the vote just now shows the process for this bill is in the hands of the Government. The Government has the majority. It can do what it wants with this bill. But just having the required majority—having the power—is never an answer to concerns about legislation that erodes citizens’ rights and freedoms.Our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act acknowledges that there will be times or circumstances when the long-cherished although not yet fully protected basic civil and human rights in that Act will be proscribed or to use the words of the Act “the rights and freedoms … may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. But when we are faced with legislation that erodes basic rights and freedoms even in limited circumstances such as this bill sets out it is vital as a matter of public confidence that it is exposed to the fullest possible public scrutiny. That has not happened here. I urge that Minister and indeed all the Government to make sure it does not happen again. Let me make it clear: Labour’s support for the substance of the legislation cannot be taken as support for a process that has shut many New Zealanders out of their basic democratic right to have a say on legislation that could affect them.Let me turn to the substance of the bill. For our part we accept there is a security threat today that is new. It was not present 10 years ago. That threat relates to the internationalisation of religious extremism and fanaticism. It has its expression in networks that spread throughout the world and we accept we are not immune. Accepting there is a security threat of a nature we may not have experienced before we turn to what is needed to deal with it bearing in mind the solemn proviso of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The starting point whenever there is a claim to restrict rights and freedoms is to be sceptical.Through Labour’s representatives on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee David Shearer and Phil Goff to whom we all—this House and New Zealanders—owe a huge debt of gratitude we challenged the need for the length of time for warrantless surveillance. It has been reduced to 24 hours which is a realistic time in which to obtain a warrant under security legislation knowing that to obtain one under that legislation is a more complex exercise than obtaining a standard police warrant for search or surveillance.More important I think in the context of this legislation are the safeguards that have now been built into any approval of surveillance without a warrant. The Minister has acknowledged those. First is the fact that the exercise of the power is confined to what is necessary to deal with an actual potential or suspected terrorist act knowing also that that term “terrorist act” is defined in the Terrorism Suppression Act which is referred to in the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act.Secondly the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has close oversight of occasions on which warrantless surveillance is conducted. The present incumbent in that role I have to say has proven the genuine independence of the role and that should provide some reassurance to us all. Amongst her powers and the further safeguards in this bill is the fact that warrantless surveillance must be reported to her. She has the power to investigate any exercise of the power of warrantless surveillance. Even where a warrant is subsequently successfully applied for she has the power to investigate the circumstances in which that warrant has been given and whether or not it is justified. Then she has the responsibility to report on the occasions on which the warrantless surveillance power has been exercised.In addition to the powers around warrantless surveillance there is also the power to cancel passports for an extended period and to suspend passports. We are reassured that there is a proper and sufficient appeal and review process certainly when it comes to the cancellation of passports such that those who have been improperly deprived of their passports and therefore potentially deprived of the opportunity to travel can seek an appeal or review in a timely manner so that they are not subject to what would effectively be a 3-year arbitrary loss of that right.We believe on balance that this bill strikes the right balance in these difficult circumstances. It is correct that there is a sunset clause. A further achievement of David Shearer and Phil Goff is to bring back or curtail that sunset clause to 2017 so that it expires within the life of this Parliament and is not pushed out to the next Parliament.New Zealanders expect this House to take their safety and security seriously and we do that. It is a difficult balancing exercise that we have to undertake but we are satisfied on balance that this bill achieves that—that it strikes the right balance and that it will ensure the greater safety and security of New Zealanders. But once again I urge the Government: please do not put this House in the position again during the life of this Parliament when it has the numbers of rushing through legislation that curtails the rights and freedoms of citizens and does so in a way that is hurried that is hasty and that deprives New Zealanders of the right to have a say. That is not the way to deal with legislation that is so important that is so serious when it has that impact on people. Notwithstanding that caution and that concern of ours we will support this bill.