Mitchell MarkTERRORISM SUPPRESSION (CONTROL ORDERS) BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Yeah to be honest with you Madam Chair it's a major concern to me that on something as serious as the terrorism suppression bill we saw in the House yesterday on the second reading the Minister of Justice come down and take a call for five minutes. We didn't see any of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee members in the House to take a call—Hon Carmel Sepuloni: That member just about missed the call himself because he wasn't paying attention.Hon MARK MITCHELL: —and so I'd ask the Minister now who seems very passionate about it to take a call and actually let the committee know what your thoughts are on the terrorism suppression bill. It's national security and it's a shame to see that we don't have the Minister of Justice in the seat. We don't have the Minister in the seat today.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Speak to it.Hon MARK MITCHELL: So instead of the Minister on the other side of the Chamber Carmel Sepuloni wanting to shout down the person taking the call stand up and take a call.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The member can't call another member to take a call. Back to the bill please Mr Mitchell.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you Madam Chair. So the reality with this bill is that it completely fails at the first test. And the first test is quite simply this: that if we have someone returning from overseas that has been engaged in or has been a sponsor of or has supported any type of terrorist activity we have to be able to pick them up at the border have an interim control order or a control order in place that means the court is then able to put an order in place where we can monitor the person—our security agencies whether it be the police or SIS can actually monitor the individual. And the bill completely fails at that first test and maybe the Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Hipkins can actually stand and take a call on this. The reason why it fails and the evidence that we heard in the select committee is quite simply this: if someone arrives in New Zealand having been a participant in some type of terror group and let's use Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) because actually that's where—we know about someone returning Mark Taylor the Bumbling Jihadi" whatever we want to call him. The guy's an idiot. There's no doubt about that. But he's actually quite a resourceful idiot because he somehow managed to get himself to Syria and linked up with ISIS. He's just one. He's not the only one. And I'd put it to this committee that actually the thing that catches Governments out is the stuff that they don't know about are the things that they don't think about and therefore they don't put plans in place to actually deal with the unknowns or have the best chance to deal with the unknowns. We don't know how many returning terrorists or people that have been involved in terror activity may turn up on our border. The other thing that we do know for sure is that we like to think in a perfect world that our partners whether it be Five Eyes partners or other coalition partners that have joined us for example as part of a broader coalition of 12 countries in Iraq and Syria to try to remove the threat of ISIS—we'd like to think that our systems would work properly and that we would be notified and that we would know about that person trying to get back to the country back into New Zealand that we were actually notified and we knew that they were on their way. In a perfect world this bill might work because it means that we do have time. The application can be made the High Court can put a control order in place and they can be picked up at the border. But the reality is this: we don't live in a perfect world and the possibility that we could have someone arrive at our border without the proper red flags or notifications is real. And if we do have someone arrive at our border and we are notified whether they're in the air or even whether they are starting to come through customs this is what the Government's relying on. They're relying on the Customs and Excise Act. They're relying on the New Zealand Customs Service to be able to detain them. They're probably going to have to break the law because we had Customs officials in front of the committee and they have got very specific regulations that allow them to detain people. They can legally detain someone for up to four hours. The problem for the Government is this: we heard from the officials that there is no way—there is no way—that they can guarantee that an interim control order could be put in place within four hours and before that person legally had to be released and could walk straight out into the community.It's good to see the Minister of Justice in the Chamber. I hope that I don't have to go back over this for him again. If I have to I will and Madam Chair I hope that you will give me the time to do that. So we're relying on—[Bell rung] Thank you Madam Chair. So we're now presented with the scenario where this person could walk straight out of the airport and straight into the community. That is a totally unacceptable risk. That is something that this Parliament and this Government has to ensure—has to make sure—cannot happen. Not 80 percent not 90 percent not 95 percent; we have to be 100 percent sure that that cannot happen. The Minister in the chair the Hon Andrew Little I challenge him to stand up and tell this committee and tell this Parliament and tell the country that he can 100 percent guarantee that we will not have a scenario—well he shakes his head; just get up and do it—where we could have someone returning to our border that can be detained by Customs probably outside their own rules and regulations and law for up to four hours. The police that came in front of the committee said this.They could not guarantee that they could have a surveillance team in place to pick up that person when they left the airport. What does that mean? That means that they just walk straight out into the community without us knowing what their intent is or what's in their mind. To me that is a 100 percent unacceptable risk that's being passed back on to the community. The Police themselves said that the amendment that the National Party was putting up to give our law enforcement agency the ability to actually stop detain and hold that person for up to 72 hours to allow the High Court to get a control order in place—they welcomed that. They wanted that power. I'd like the Minister to stand and tell this House why he wouldn't work with us why he wouldn't sit down to discuss what we feel are seven very strong amendments and Supplementary Order Papers—that we will talk to—that strengthen this bill. Because to me—we'll talk to the rest of the bill—it fails at the first test because we can't stop that person we can't detain them. So what we're saying to the country—and this is the reality and this is what happens Minister when you sell your soul to the Green Party to a party that—Michael Wood: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I believe that items relating to control orders are in Part 2 of the bill. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): That's correct so if the member could resume his debate and talk about Part 1. Hon MARK MITCHELL: I'm very happy to Madam Chairperson because I'll be taking several calls in Part 2 of the bill that relate to control orders but back to my original point. Brett Hudson: What is the purpose of the bill? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well and that's what I'm talking to the purpose of the bill and I'm being very clear that this bill fails at the first test at the purpose. The purpose is to pick up returning Kiwis that have been involved with sponsoring or assisting in some type of terror activity when they arrive at our border. That is the purpose of the bill. That's the original meeting that I had with the Minister that's what was discussed that's what the imminent threat is that's why we're trying to pass this legislation through the House as quickly as possible. It's the right thing to do. It would have been nice—there was a three-month lag between that original meeting with the Minister and the actual bill being brought to the House—to have given the public and interested parties more time to make a submission. That was one of the big bugbears that actually came out through the select committee process: that it was a compressed process and there wasn't enough time to actually look at it and make submissions. But this bill fails and the Minister—instead of coming and sitting down with us and working with us to come up with a strong bill that will actually genuinely protect our people in New Zealand Kiwis he didn't want to do that. He sold out to the Green Party a party that's made—when he first brought this bill out the party and the spokesperson Golriz Ghahraman said it was "dog-whistling". She said it was "dog-whistling". She said "There's no place for this extra sort of dog-whistling in lawmaking." She came out against the bill and now she's leading it on behalf of the Labour Party and New Zealand First. What does that say about the strength of the bill? It says this: that it's weak and it's not going to be strong enough to protect New Zealanders and Kiwis which is what was meant to be the intent of it. So I'd ask the Minister to please stand and address the issues that I've raised in terms of the original intent of this bill. Thank you Madam Chairperson."