Finlayson Christopher: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFinlayson Christopher: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee[Sitting date: 09 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1207. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service)on behalf of theMinister for National Security and Intelligence: I move That the Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill be now read a second time. This is an omnibus bill that responds to the rapid evolution of the threat posed by those who want to commit terrorist acts both overseas and in New Zealand. I want immediately to thank the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and the officials for the very good job they have done. I particularly acknowledge the work of the chair Mr Mark Mitchell and the extremely helpful contributions of Messrs Shearer and Goff.Members of the committee who speak this afternoon—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a serious debate and I want the level—[Interruption] Order! I do not expect an Opposition whip to interrupt when I am on my feet.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Members of the committee who speak this afternoon will address the individual changes that the committee has recommended be made to the legislation. I think these changes greatly improve the bill. It was always intended to contain a targeted set of measures and I believe those measures are even more targeted now than they were before the committee considered them.What I want to do is use this second reading speech to address a couple of issues that still appear to concern some people. First the question has been raised about whether the term “foreign fighter” requires a definition. The Government’s view is that the term does not need a specific definition in the bill. The bill does not create a stand-alone piece of legislation and the definition of “terrorist act” in section 5 of the Terrorism Suppression Act already provides the definition required. That definition is the core concept on which this legislation relies; adding a definition of “foreign fighter” would be superfluous.We are targeting people by behaviour or intended behaviour not by a label. The bill targets people who want to carry out a terrorist act either here in New Zealand—whether one calls them foreign terrorist fighters as the UN did or other violent extremists or something else. The actions of the people popularly referred to as foreign terrorist fighters—i.e. people who want to go and fight for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)—are just the latest manifestation of the terrorist acts already envisaged by and defined in the Terrorism Suppression Act.The second question that has arisen—and I think the Greens and others have asked it—is whether environmental activists could be caught by this legislation. The answer to that is no. Once again I refer to the definition of a “terrorist act” in section 5 of the Terrorism Suppression Act. An action by an activist would have to fall within the definition of one of the specified terrorist acts and I particularly refer members to section 5(5) of that legislation which is an “avoid doubt” clause and states: “the fact that a person engages in any protest advocacy or dissent … is not by itself a sufficient basis for inferring that …” the person’s behaviour falls under the Act. On top of that the layers of oversight we now have not least the significant powers—the greatly strengthened powers—of the inspector-general ensure this could not be the case.The third issue—and I think this is Mr Shearer’s—is whether the changes proposed in the bill still allow a person to go home to Kurdistan for example to defend his or her home. The first point I would make is that this legislation does not change the existing legal situation of a person in that position. Section 8A of the Passports Act 1992 which was inserted into the Act in 2005 by the previous Labour Government already allows the cancellation of a passport on the grounds that a person is a danger to the security of New Zealand because he or she “intends to engage in or facilitate— … a terrorist act within the meaning of section 5 of the Terrorism Suppression Act”. That section defines a terrorist act as an act that occurs “in any 1 or more countries”—and I emphasise that phrase. So this bill really is a clarification of the existing situation. In fact the only new procedure introduced by this bill is the ability to suspend New Zealand travel documents temporarily for up to 10 working days.The second point is that any person whose passport was to be cancelled would need to be intending to carry out or assist in one of the terrorist acts specified in section 5 in line with the purposes outlined in that section. As I said on the weekend the same principle applies to anyone who is planning to go overseas to engage in or facilitate a terrorist act as defined by section 5.The third point is that this bill does not go anywhere near as far as the Australian legislation which seeks to ban Australian citizens from even travelling to certain areas unless they have lawful excuse. This legislation does not prevent New Zealanders from travelling to these areas although obviously we would strongly advise against it. As I said in order to have a passport cancellation occur the Minister must be satisfied that the person intends to engage in or facilitate a terrorist act. That is the core concept to which all these provisions apply.There are a number of difficulties posed by any suggestion that we amend the definition of “terrorist act” to exempt for example a person returning to Kurdistan to fight ISIL. Firstly as I have said the bill targets terrorist acts. We do not want to equivocate on that matter. We do not want New Zealanders getting caught up in this conflict in general and we would not want any New Zealander committing any terrorist act on any side.Secondly the passport cancellation system is a system under ministerial control. It requires ministerial discretion. The Minister will have to take a number of factors into account when making a decision. Thirdly amending the definition of “terrorist act” in the way proposed could put the Minister making a decision regarding a passport cancellation in the difficult position of having to assess who is fighting for whom. That may be a more straightforward task when one considers ISIL and the Kurds but this is a chaotic and fast-developing situation. The distinction may not be so clear when considering individual areas of Syria.I do not think we want a Minister having to decide whether an intended terrorist act may be excusable or not given the circumstances making specific legislative carve-outs in the Terrorism Suppression Act. I think that would undermine the purpose of the legislation but it could also create a dangerous precedent. The main point is we do not want New Zealanders getting involved.They were the three issues that I wanted to address. As I said I am sure members of the committee who are speaking this afternoon will address particular matters that arose in the course of the hearings. The final point I want to emphasise is that this is temporary legislation—there is a sunset clause. We have a comprehensive review coming up of all security legislation and this must begin no later than June 2015. Any changes recommended in that review and passed into law will supersede what we are debating today. If new legislation is not enforced by the time the sunset clause comes into operation the provisions we are debating are going to lapse. The legislative product of that review will have a full select committee hearing and I am sure that some of the issues we have debated over the past few weeks will get another airing then. Once again I thank the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for its excellent work and I commend the bill to the House.