Peters Winston: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee[Sitting date: 09 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1217. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):As has been the case since New Zealand First was created over 21 years ago the core principle of our party is one of love for our country. We in New Zealand First are proud of New Zealand and we believe we have a duty to protect it from all enemies. We believe there is a historic obligation to protect our culture and our heritage and this obligation requires every member of our party to advocate in the strongest possible terms for a strong defence force for the rule of law and for safe and secure borders. Only when these requirements are met can the country develop according to the will of the New Zealand people. We have a unique culture and heritage and we as a party believe that it must be preserved and strengthened no matter what the cost. We believe that the primary concern of any responsible political party is national security and we take national security seriously all of the time and on all policies.New Zealand First opposes this bill for a number of reasons. First we agree with the concerns on this bill raised by the New Zealand Law Commission and we note that although improvements have been made at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to some areas identified by the commission many areas leave much to be desired.Second this Parliament in 2007 removed from the Crimes Act the crime of sedition. There was one party and one party alone that opposed this repeal and voted against it. That party was New Zealand First. The crime of sedition is still needed now. It simply must be a crime—as it was when we had sedition on our books—“To incite procure or encourage violence lawlessness or disorder; or … To incite procure or encourage the commission of any offence that is prejudicial to the public safety or to the maintenance of public order;”. Its repeal was ill-considered and ill-founded by the very people who stand up today and say: “Trust us. We are your sentries and guardians and protectors.” What is their record? Many of those responsible for repealing it are right here in this House. We will move in the Committee stage to reintroduce the crime of sedition.Third we do not have enough confidence or trust in the Security Intelligence Service given some of its recent offences and serious shortcomings to allow this organisation such widely increased powers of surveillance. Let us not forget the case of Rajesh Singh. Mr Singh is a former Fijian Government Minister democratically elected by the people of Fiji. His Government was overthrown by Frank Bainimarama in the military coup of 2006 and he—Mr Singh—fled to Auckland. In 2012 his premises were raided by the SIS and police. The pretext was that he was about to engage in a foreign offshore terrorism act. What is interesting about this case is that as he was about to be raided he received a text message from a senior army officer in Fiji telling him that he was about to be raided. I have seen that text message. How on earth could a senior army officer in Fiji know that the New Zealand SIS was about to conduct a raid on Mr Singh who was lawfully living in New Zealand?The subsequent actions of the SIS and the police during the raid are cause for grave disquiet as is the case of Mr Tony Fullman. Mr Fullman had his passport cancelled by the Department of Internal Affairs on the advice of the New Zealand SIS on 17 July 2012. Why? Because he also was alleged to be about to partake in a foreign act of terrorism. The claim was without any merit and within a year the Government back-pedalled on its decision and wrote to Mr Fullman to say that he could now have his passport back and said—because it has always been very charitable this Government—that he would not have to pay for the application replacement fee. [Interruption] Does that not make you feel good?Then of course there is the case of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) and Kim Dotcom. How on earth could the GCSB not know that Dotcom was a New Zealand resident or the Prime Minister not know that he was living in his electorate? And when exactly was the Prime Minister made aware of Dotcom and the GCSB raid? He has never admitted foreknowledge at all.Hon Dr Nick Smith: He didn’t know.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh he did not know. Here he goes again—“know nothing - ism” from the expert of “know nothing - ism” Nick Smith. There is a smell around this but let us be frank. What this bill is really about is much wider surveillance powers and the Prime Minister has been covert about it all the way until just after the election. In June it was no worries no engagement no concerns a long election campaign—one of the longest we have seen in modern times—and he never mentioned it. But he has been running around offshore making promises to all and sundry and now he is being deliberately evasive with the New Zealand public.The Government and others say that they are all concerned about security. We have seen time and time again the problems that uncontrolled immigration policies create but what was their response? To never do a thing about it. From Paris to London and even to Stockholm we have seen riots in the streets honour killings terrorist attacks and terrorist plots.In 2005 I asked the Minister of Immigration about the case of one Asha Ali Abdille a Muslim refugee from Somalia. I asked the Minister: “Is he confident that Asha Ali Abdille the refugee sickness beneficiary whom he ordered an inquiry into last year and who has a string of criminal convictions is not a threat to the New Zealand community; if so why?”. He said she was not. Then 3 years later she tried to hijack Flight 2279 from Blenheim and attempted to get the pilots to fly to Australia. They refused and bravely fought back along with other passengers on the plane and eventually subdued her. But in her attempt to hijack the aircraft at knifepoint she wounded both pilots and one passenger. She was sentenced to 9 years at the New Zealand taxpayer’s cost.This sort of repetitive behaviour and the “know nothing - ism” about whom we are bringing here we in New Zealand First are sick of and we are not going to have those people get up in this House and all of a sudden be the new sentries and guardians of our society.No one in this Parliament or in the media can possibly say that New Zealand First is not tough on security for our national defence.Jami-Lee Ross: Weak.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh “Weak.” he says—“Weak.” he says. He has got no idea whom he has brought in from the Middle East. Those members encourage them to come here in their thousands and there is Jami-Lee Ross sitting over there saying we are weak. Look ignorance is not bliss. Ignorance Mr Jami-Lee Ross is not bliss and the fact is that no one is going to believe you.We in New Zealand First take the issue of terrorism—and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)—very seriously all of the time and on all policies. We have known all year—not just after the election; we have known all year—about ISIS. Do those people not watch the international broadcasts the media and all the advice coming out of the Middle East? Or is the blind ignorance in the research unit all that they rely on or is it the Prime Minister’s assurances? We have known all year about this threat and we know that radical Islam is a growing threat as well. We have known that for a decade so what is so new now?The fact is that we want our immigration system tightened up. We want our border security tightened up. I do not want to hear that we have got 20000 overstayers—give or take 2000—here in a modern computerised age. I do not want to hear that we do not know what is going on. I do not want to hear that I am the only guy who could find a person who was the former agrarian Minister who had come out of Iraq and that none of the lawful authorities in this country could find him—nor for that matter could any of these people now posing today.The PM cannot be trusted. The SIS was caught playing dirty politics spying on the most senior Opposition MP. The PM is still not being honest about the imminent deployment to Iraq of our armed forces. We know that our troops have already been told that by the end of February-March they will be off. He is still denying it and the Minister of Defence is denying it in this House as well.More seriously the Government has put up this law at breakneck speed with the fastest change I have ever seen in this House on a matter so serious. It has rammed it through the select committee and it thinks we are going to comply.There may be parties in this Parliament at the moment that look alike and sound alike on this matter and that have got the same record but it is not our record. It is not New Zealand First’s record. We know that this bill came about as a result of a review that we were never briefed on. A law review is coming next year—no doubt we will have new law then—and in the meantime we are asked to cry havoc and let loose the dogs of Nazism when it comes to people’s homes. The surveillance—when you have got video surveillance is it 50 metres or 500 metres? All these people are swept in and too many people are supporting this legislation without knowing just how technically wide and unfair it could possibly be.