O'Rourke Denis: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 25 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:792. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):New Zealand First will support this bill’s referral to the select committee but not necessarily any further. There are a number of complex issues to consider and we will not be a rubber stamp. We want a common-sense solution to the tension between human rights and the need to restrain misguided Kiwis from leaving to fight for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in its quest for genocide and its other extreme atrocities in pursuance of an Islamic State. Concerning Syria and Iraq within a matter of weeks we have gone from keeping a watching brief to the commitment of a handful of advisers operating behind the wire to—we understand—about 40 trainers along with about 60 SAS members to act as protection for them in front of the wire. If ISIS did not know of New Zealand before it most certainly does know us now. We are now an active and direct enemy with all of the national security ramifications that go with that. Our risk profile has certainly been raised.Turning to the bill itself why the rush now given that foreign fighters have been going to Syria and Iraq for months if not years? We have been horrified by “Jihadi John” and similar stories even from France for the best part of a year and we are of course concerned about possible Kiwi jihadis too. But this Government has dithered and is now pressing the pedal to the metal without a parliamentary debate on the commitment of New Zealand forces. Such a debate did of course happen elsewhere especially in the United Kingdom so why was such debate and democracy sidelined here? The Government is rushing through this bill as a stopgap expecting all parties to rubber-stamp it—some as in the case of New Zealand First without any consultation. The bill is in fact too late and too little to protect New Zealand’s interests and we are given the excuse that a more comprehensive review is needed in about 6 months’ time.New Zealand First does not believe that New Zealand troops should be put into Syria or Iraq for the purpose of supporting any Government under attack by ISIS. We sensibly did not support the Iraqi war which was the cause of the current situation and we should not now enter the mess that is the result of that war—a messy multi-level armed conflict that straddles religious tribal and ethnic lines and national boundaries. It will have an uncertain outcome and is likely to go on for many years. In the end nothing will ultimately be resolved by conflict and the massive loss of life. There is of course an exception: New Zealand should always follow United Nations action to protect populations and people against genocide and persecution. But that is not the context for the current decision to deploy troops. The Government is sailing into unknown territory not really knowing what the objective is.In relation to this bill we support the proposed comprehensive review of legislative settings and a broader intelligence review to be completed before June 2015 even though that is far too late and we support some of the proposals in the bill going to the select committee. We support the proposal of a 3-year cancellation of passports instead of 1 year going to the select committee where we will hear what others have to say before we make a final decision. On the face of it however that period may be justified where the individual concerned is likely to act against New Zealand’s interests and is likely to continue to do so for an extended period of over 1 year. That is entirely consistent with New Zealand’s obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 2178 which encourages States to act to prevent intending foreign terrorist fighters from leaving to join ISIS and to fight with it.If New Zealand troops are to be put in harm’s way they need to be supported even if they should not be there. We must not allow some misguided Kiwi adventurers or jihadis to fight against our own troops but the cancellation of a passport for 3 years is a very serious matter and we will need to consider that further. We do however note that the safeguards are included in the bill by which those concerned may seek a review every year and they of course always have the right to resort to the courts. Although we acknowledge the safeguards in respect of human rights built into this bill those rights are always subject to the right of the whole community to protect New Zealand’s interests and a 3-year cancellation may be justified in those circumstances.Turning to the SIS visual surveillance authority it is logical that this be the same power as the police have with a warrant. Safeguards and overview are built into the process but New Zealand First will examine the adequacy of those safeguards and the sufficiency of the overview before we make a final decision on whether to support it. However 48 hours without a warrant is far too long. New Zealand First would support 24 hours but not 48. The Government frankly would need to get its act together within 24 hours to get a warrant where such a serious invasion of personal privacy is involved and 48 hours is much too tempting for a service that has shown scant regard for the law in the past. I do not see why it should take 48 hours to get a warrant. Another has said that with cellphones the internet and so on these days—well frankly even carrier pigeons could carry messages fast enough within 24 hours let along 48.New Zealand First is concerned about the sunset clause for expiry in 2018. This parks the matter conveniently until after the next election. It must be reviewed before then and in fact before the 2017 election so that we do not have the same dithering that we have seen this year. The New Zealand public do have a right to have a say and ultimately to have a say with their vote. That should not be removed by the timing of the sunset clause until after 2017 has passed.As I have said New Zealand First will support the bill going to the select committee but as I have also said we want some changes if we are to support it further. We want to hear the argument in support of the 3-year period for cancellation of a passport which is very long. We will make a final decision on that later. We are certain however that 48 hours for surveillance by the SIS without a warrant is far too long and is not justified. We want to see a change to that in particular. Finally as I have said the sunset clause expiring in 2018 is about a year too far away and we definitely want to see that happen before the 2017 election. For the time being however New Zealand First will vote in favour of the bill going to the select committee but we certainly may change our minds after we see what the final bill looks like.