Dunne Peter: Ministerial Statements — Islamic State Conflict—Government ResponseText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDunne Peter: Ministerial Statements — Islamic State Conflict—Government Response[Sitting date: 05 November 2014. Volume:701;Page:618. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future):I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate this afternoon in response to the Prime Minister’s statement on the Government’s response to the Islamic State conflict. I think it is a good step for this House to be following. But I think the next step is for such statements in future to be made directly to Parliament and not to an interested audience of notables and worthies outside Parliament in advance of this important occasion.From the time of the Balfour Declaration in 1917 through to the most recent American intervention in Iraq the history of Western intervention in the Middle East has not always led to peaceable outcomes. We have certainly seen more confusion more upheaval and more bitterness created by some of those interventions over the years and that is why I think the Government has taken a prudent course in ruling out any form of military involvement by New Zealand in the campaign against Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). I think that that is not just recognition of our particular strength or lack thereof but it is also correct in terms of the course of history and I must say in passing that the sending of military advisers to Iraq is in my view at the outer limit of acceptability.But the issue really now comes down to a humanitarian one. No one anywhere can tolerate the barbarity the brutality the exhibitionism and the crudity of the ISIS terrorists. What we have seen in the media and social media is unacceptable by any norm but we need to be very careful that we do not transfer our abhorrence of this behaviour into a lack of understanding or a preparedness to even consider the political views that lie behind that most brutal expression. That is why it is appropriate for countries like New Zealand to work through humanitarian assistance to the affected parties and as the Prime Minister’s speech earlier today made reference to assist with the construction of sound institutions of State and forms of governance to promote democratic ideals—to promote the sorts of values that we might regard as important in a free society—rather than a brutal suppression of those ideas because we abhor the methods that the proponents use. Just as we might later today celebrate—although some of us might commiserate with—the demise of Guy Fawkes 500 years ago because of the methods that he used we cannot get into the same risk with regard to our treatment of the ISIS terrorists.There are a number of measures contained in the Prime Minister’s announcement that I want to comment on specifically. If I can put on my hat as the Minister of Internal Affairs for just a moment I think that the changes proposed to the passports legislation are appropriate. The current legislation has been shown to have some deficiencies particularly in terms of the duration of a suspension but also in the definition used which at the moment is specific to the interests of New Zealand. The question that then arises is how those interests might be interpreted. Are they New Zealand’s domestic interests or wider interests or a combination of both? So I think that the changes proposed in that respect are positive and there are safeguards contained within those proposals that mean that we will not get a ridiculous or rampant use of those provisions.I think the same can be said for the changes regarding surveillance by the SIS although I have some misgivings about aspects of that but broadly speaking they line up with the provisions that the police already have. They will be subject to a warrant and that warrant under the legislation changes last year is much more accountable publicly than was the case previously. In an ideal world these changes would have awaited the outcome of the review of the SIS and the Government Communications Security Bureau due to occur after 30 June next year but I accept that that may not be a practical step even though it might be a preferable one and I think that the idea of therefore having some sunset clauses about those particular provisions is a good one. But I echo a comment that was made by an earlier speaker. I want to ensure that the sunset clause is exercised not at the last minute but as soon as the changes that arise from the review next year are put in place.I must say that I do have some concerns about the additional funding of $7 million being advanced to the SIS. I think that that is a matter that requires more scrutiny in terms of the direction of that expenditure—the purposes to which it is being put—and I am sure that that is something the Intelligence and Security Committee will turn its mind to in due course. Beyond that there was a comment in the Prime Minister’s statement regarding greater international intelligence cooperation. I have some very real misgivings about that because I have lingering concerns about the capacity of our Government Communications Security Bureau to contribute effectively to that process. It seems to me that what we are reliant on in a lot of cases is external intelligence coming into New Zealand to assist us in the decisions we might make. In that context I therefore worry about what we might be doing in terms of greater cooperation. I would hate to think we are in a position where the particular circumstances we are properly concerned about with regard to the rise of ISIS are being used as a cover or an excuse for a more broadening extension of intelligence powers and practices than might otherwise have been the case. I have not heard that suggested and I hope it is not in fact the reality.I think that for many people what they have seen in recent weeks has really jolted their attention in terms of the march of international terrorism and it has given us a new sense of how small and vulnerable our world is. The romantic notions that perhaps our grandparents might have told us about the troops that marched off to be part of the international battalion during the Spanish Civil War and the fight against Franco and fascism do not apply today. Communication is more instant. Communication is more sinister. Planning is more devious. It is not some romantic march for freedom as those fighters in the international battalion might have been on in the 1930s. So it is appropriate for States to do things to protect themselves and their citizenry from the threat of such attacks. The numbers for New Zealand may well be small but those people have contacts. Those people are a relatively fluid group and we know they do not simply sit around and talk just to each other; they talk to a range of other people.I think that that is where we as citizens have a right to be both concerned and then assured that the appropriate steps are being taken to protect our safety as individuals and also our safety as a nation. We have seen examples in other countries of quite random and quite significant—in the sense of particular—attacks on individuals. It is not so much a case of the grand attack any more it seems to me but a much more immediate random attack that cuts at the very core of the confidence of a society. Be it plans for moves in Australia that have been thwarted or be it the assassination of innocent citizens in Canada or in the United Kingdom the risk is none the less the same. So the issue for New Zealand is what we can do to protect our citizens in that respect. The safeguard we have is that the measures that have been announced are in my view prudent and will also be examined by a select committee before they are passed by this House.I want to say this to the Prime Minister. I think it was a good step to make the statement in the way he did this morning. I think that if there are to be future iterations of this process they should be made in the same way to this Parliament where they can be debated and a consensus secured for the measures that we might be about to take because the best way of securing our freedom for the future is to ensure that we have all bought into the concept of what it is we are trying to secure right from the outset. Frankly a divided House or a divided country in these sorts of situations leaves us nowhere. So I think that today is a useful start. There is a lot of ground yet to cover and I look forward to further discussions and debate as the tides continue to flow.