Little Andrew: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 25 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:782. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition):I thank the Minister Christopher Finlayson for his adumbration of the legislation and note that the position that we had taken—and certainly I had taken—when this legislation was foreshadowed in the Prime Minister’s speech a few weeks ago and when the bill itself had been publicised over the weekend was to look askance at the provisions that constitute a further erosion of people’s freedoms and liberties particularly the claim for the need for warrantless surveillance for a period of up to 48 hours; the cancellation of passports for up to 3 years an extension from the current 1-year period; and the suspension of passports for those who are travelling overseas because they do constitute issues and matters of removal of rights in respect of which when this House is dealing with them we should take considerable care. My position had been that we needed to see a case from the Government about the circumstances in which these sorts of powers might be needed or the circumstances that might justify these powers particularly the warrantless surveillance. It is fair to say that there is still some nervousness on our side about the provision as it appears in the bill.I have had a briefing myself from the SIS and I have had explained to me circumstances in which the need for the security agency to be able to respond quickly and efficaciously to a threat or to a set of circumstances is needed because of the speed with which the people operating in this sphere now act. It was explained to me what is needed to obtain a warrant under our security legislation and it is an involved process. I happen to think that that is a good thing because the warrants that are applied for allow our security officials to take action under the cloak of secrecy as they must do and as is the nature of security work but they constitute a massive erosion of privacy and civil rights. So there should be effective checks and balances and it should be a deliberative and careful process to obtain a warrant in order for State officials to breach privacy and to act against people’s civil rights.The briefing I had took me through the process it takes to get a warrant. There are very narrow statutory requirements that must be met. There is a vetting of the application. There needs to be an affidavit. There needs to be accompanying information and exhibits which go with the affidavit. That is all a good thing but that of course takes time. Yet there are people who are operating against our national security interests and indeed international security interests who act much more quickly than that about whom it is desirable that our security agencies are able to gather information in order to evaluate and if necessary counter the threat that they pose or the risk that they pose. I understand that and I get that. I also think that New Zealanders generally speaking want to know that they live in a safe and secure country they want their security agencies to be effective and they want them to have the correct powers so that the nation is safe and they are safe in the streets and in their homes. But I also think that it is the New Zealand tradition to make sure that when the powers of the State are being exercised—the powers of State that are compulsive and do erode civil liberties—there are good and proper checks and balances.On that basis we say let us have a good close examination of this bill. Let us accept that there are security threats today that we had not foreseen 10 years ago 20 years ago or 30 years ago that the security climate and the security environment is a constantly changing beast and that it has changed in the last 10 years at least. We need to know that the right powers the right commitment the right equipment and the right capability are available to our security officials to do their job and to keep us safe. So we say let us have a close examination of the bill. We will ask some questions. We will ask: do we need the security agencies to have a period of 48 hours when they can undertake surveillance—video surveillance if necessary—without a warrant or is it possible for a warrant to be obtained in less than 48 hours? And if there is to be a suggestion even if there is a much more truncated period of time that a period of warrantless surveillance might be validated in retrospect I personally think that that is more problematic than simply having a warrantless period. But let us have a look at those provisions. Let us have a proper examination of them. Let us hear from the experts and most important let us hear from New Zealanders and from those who feel they have a special interest in this and who want to have their say.That is why we will have something to say about the process that the Government has entered into in this legislation—the urgency and the need to get it passed so quickly. The Prime Minister laid out the threats that this bill seeks to address a good 3 or 4 weeks ago. There has been one session of the House since that time and now we are in the second session and now the Government brings the legislation in under urgency. So the committee will want to see some assessment of and some appreciation for the need for that urgency as we consider it. The shorter the amount of time we have available to consider legislation and most important to hear from our citizens about it then often the worse the legislation is when it comes to be passed. So we do urge the Government to look carefully at the process and at the time frame that it has given for the passage of this legislation to allow New Zealanders to have a fair chance to make a comment on it. Let us have a good discussion and a good debate on whether the legislation needs to go as far as it does.I have talked about the 48-hour warrantless period. There is then the period for cancelling passports. If it is to be 3 years which is an increase from the 1-year period at the moment are there enough safeguards so that somebody who is wrongly caught up in a set of allegations or an incorrect threat assessment can apply to have the cancellation of their passport reviewed in a time that is much less than 3 years? What we do not want to see is that if somebody is the subject of an incorrect threat assessment they lose their passport and it is years before they can get it back. There has got to be an effective appeal process or a judicial review process that means that they can get it back in an efficient and effective amount of time.So with those sorts of provisos we say let us look at this bill and let us pay close attention to those provisions that do take away the rights and privileges that citizens in New Zealand have and ordinarily expect. You know we do not want to be drawn into the panicked response that security legislation is often promoted in. We know there are threats and we know also that the security agencies often have access to information that they cannot disclose without revealing their own tactics and the approaches they need to take but let us not also get into the process of causing scare causing fright as a basis to justify this legislation. Let us have a good and honest examination and a good and honest debate about it.Finally there is the other provision that relates to the suspension of passports for people who are abroad and the removal of their travel documents of course puts them in an extraordinarily difficult position. We would just ask that the Government when it is part of the committee process shepherding the legislation through make very careful consideration of this because this is a very serious step to take for New Zealand citizens when they are travelling. On that basis let us send this bill to the select committee for a closer examination. Let us hear from New Zealand citizens let us hear from the experts and let us see whether we can make this bill a good and balanced piece of security legislation that acknowledges and respects citizens’ rights and acknowledges and respects the modern security threats that New Zealand faces. Thank you.