Delahunty Catherine: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDelahunty Catherine: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee[Sitting date: 09 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1219. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Before I talk about some of the aspects of the bill in this second reading in terms of human rights and civil liberties because human rights is my portfolio I want to ask some questions. The reason why the Green Party is not supporting the bill is that the questions have not been answered to our satisfaction. I recognise there has been work done and answers given but they are not to our satisfaction at this stage.The first one is: is there an immediate threat? I think it is hard to argue that the world is safe or has been safe for a very very long time. In fact ever since September 11 and our participation in the Afghani issue our country has been unsafe to some degree but not to a very high degree and I think it is hard to argue that we are more unsafe than we have been for quite a while. We have sided with the “Five Eyes” in various wars either directly or indirectly which has created a level of risk. That is a choice that has been made by Governments not by the Green Party and we are yet to be convinced that there is an immediate threat that means that rather than wait until June 2015 for a full security review it is necessary to introduce this legislation under urgency and I will talk about the process for the public in a minute.Do we have police powers already to address serious criminal acts? Yes we do. That is my understanding—we really do. Is the SIS neutral and have we forgotten what happened on the very day this bill was introduced in terms of the SIS’s relationship to an abuse of power and a lack of neutrality? Many people in the public have not forgotten and the Green Party has not forgotten. How do we actually stop recruitment to terrorism: through more violence and surveillance or by making an investment in communities where that risk could possibly arise? How do we support the Muslim community for example—although this bill is much broader than that—to be treated with respect and how do we assist it to be part of a process of de-radicalising people who might be at risk? Why can we not wait until next year? Also what is the definition of “extremist”? There is a considerable debate about the word “extremist” the word “terrorist” and about what they actually mean and where does that sit?We would have to know what those things are before we could possibly vote for this bill because warrantless surveillance visual surveillance etc. are all serious issues for people who could be categorised as terrorist or extremist and whose actions have been associated with guerrilla warfare liberation struggles or even non-violent action in this country. What was once a small but progressive country making a huge global contribution could now possibly be one of the most conservative in this regard particularly in the way in which this bill has been forced through.So I just want to talk a little bit about the 525 or more submissions not heard in person and also the many people who could not submit because they did not even know that there were only 2 days available. I want to pay credit—total credit—to the Kiwi citizens who actually showed the Government up and made thoughtful informed and committed submissions on this issue. I acknowledge that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee did a huge amount of work to hear them and I support every word that my colleague Dr Kennedy Graham said when he talked about this process. I would like to thank the civil liberties and human rights groups. Many thanks go to those submitters who are Muslim New Zealanders for their vital reminder to the select committee about the impact of this legislation including the increase in personal abuse that has occurred since the Prime Minister started justifying this extension of spy powers and creating more fear and more paranoia towards the Muslim community.The modifications in this bill were predictable. There is more oversight of the SIS which is a good thing and the change to the time frame for video surveillance without a warrant was a predictable change. It was always built in that the Government could gain the Labour Party’s support by backing off on those issues. That was entirely to be predicted but actually it does not make much difference—24 hours or 48 hours with no warrant is still an unacceptable trade-off that we cannot live with.The biggest problem we in the Green Party have is this bill’s rationale and the barely explained urgency that is forcing it through this House. Why have we rushed to push the panic button? Who is telling us we must do this? If we are so concerned about foreign fighters why does the bill create broad powers? From where we sit this looks like broad powers to allow for some giant fishing expeditions for some fish who may be very very small or very very large but who will not have the basic rights that citizens of this country ought to have and who will be subjected to surveillance. I want to quote just briefly from Amnesty—