Adams Amy: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeAdams Amy: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 25 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:784. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice):Thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution in this debate on the Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill. Can I just begin by acknowledging Andrew Little the speaker who has just resumed his seat congratulating him on his elevation to Leader of the Opposition and thanking him actually for making a number of quite thoughtful I think and well-balanced comments in this debate. This is undoubtedly the most serious of issues. Parliament is at its best when the members of this House recognise the seriousness of the issues being considered and the critical importance of our getting them right and try to set aside any point-scoring agenda to make sure that we do our job as well as we can to protect the safety of the people of New Zealand. I want to acknowledge the parties in the House that are working very hard with the Government to make that happen.I do not think anyone in this House would choose to dispute the fact that the most critical obligation of a Government and of this Parliament is to protect its citizens. New Zealand has for a long time been in the very happy situation of being largely removed from the bulk of international conflicts. We are incredibly fortunate to be an island nation tucked away from conflict zones. Although that has meant that we have had a very peaceful and tranquil—to quote the words of the prayer of this House—existence it can sometimes mean that our citizens become almost complacent about the risks that are very real and very present. We have to take the international threat picture seriously and I think we have to recognise that the world is an increasingly small place when it comes to matters of global security whether that be cyber-security or the very real threat of terrorism and that the benign environment that has been our birthright and that we have been so familiar with for so many years is not one that can be taken for granted.The reality is that New Zealanders are at risk every day whether they are at home or even more so when they are abroad. Of course New Zealanders are a well-travelled nation of people. We live our lives and we carry out our businesses all over the world. At any point in time almost all of us will have family members who are travelling the globe. We have to play our part not only to protect our citizens but to ensure we are doing our part in the international sphere. In that regard I do want to particularly note that one of the critical reasons for passing this legislation and for doing so quickly is to give full effect to our obligations under Security Council Resolution 2178 by making sure we have the statutory powers available to restrict and disrupt the travel of suspected foreign fighters. So in that regard I certainly—and I am sure many members of this House—would want to stand up and say that we are doing our part for a safer globe.The changes in this bill as this House knows came about from a review of our security services and whether they have the capability and the framework that they need to protect New Zealanders and as I say to play our part in the world against this threat of foreign fighters. That report came back and identified some core measures that needed to be addressed quickly to fill the holes but it equally recognised that given the urgency of this process and by necessity the short time frame in which to complete both the review and the drafting of the legislation and this legislative process it is appropriate that these powers which are extensive are limited by a sunset clause—which they are—that they will be subjected to the full review by the Security Intelligence Service that is required by statute to begin next year and that of course while they are in force they are subject to very careful oversight.The powers I am sure will be well canvassed in this debate and they have been already to an extent. They really largely turn on the power of the Minister of Internal Affairs to consider the grant suspension and removal of travel documents where that is necessary both in terms of the length of time that he—or she as the case may be in the future—can suspend travel documents for and the speed with which he can act should that be required in urgent situations. We are moving out obviously to a maximum of 3 years’ cancellation of passports but importantly with a 12-month review clause in there and of course the individuals concerned will continue to have the ability to seek a judicial review of any decision made in that regard.The other core area of the changes really do relate to the ability of our Security Intelligence Service to be able to investigate and keep us safe from terrorist activities and in that regard there is a glaring distinction at the moment between the powers that the New Zealand Police and other investigative bodies have under the Search and Surveillance Act and the fact that the SIS currently does not have those same sorts of powers to carry out visual surveillance in a private place with a warrant. Those of us who have been involved as I was in the passing of the Search and Surveillance Bill and who sat through the select committee processes will know the detailed consideration that was put into considering the appropriateness of that surveillance and whether we had the balance right between the rights of private citizens and the important right to protect law and order in this country. I am very comfortable that we landed in a good place. Now is the time to ensure that those same rights that the New Zealand Police has in terms of prosecuting such offences also extends to the SIS.Can I just make the comment in respect of video surveillance that of course the Commissioner of Security Warrants will need to be satisfied that the conditions for issuing a warrant apply. Then as a second safeguard the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service also needs to be satisfied that the conditions for issuing a warrant apply. The last speaker Mr Little made reference to the issue of the 48-hour period in which some surveillance can be undertaken without a warrant where there is a real risk of a delay in doing so prejudicing the ability to carry out that investigation. This is a critical issue. I think it is one of the key reasons that we do need to take the time for this bill to be considered and worked through in terms of some of those operational aspects. Equally at the moment you will know that the power to carry out that warrantless surveillance for the first 48 hours if that delay would be seriously prejudicial falls under the control of the director of the agency. Again this is certainly something that I expect members will want to consider very carefully during the time that the bill is at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee in order to make sure that we do have those safeguards that are absolutely appropriate.We cannot hide from the fact that there are very real risks if we overdo the process but nor should we get so carried away in providing every freedom to surveillance agencies that we do not properly safeguard the rights of New Zealand citizens. That is certainly the balance that the Government wishes to seek. I am personally very comfortable that although these powers are significant powers the reality the seriousness and the pervasiveness of the threat is one that cannot be ignored. I believe it is the appropriate response of this Government and the House to ensure that we do have interim measures in place pending the sunset clause while a more fulsome review can be undertaken. I am very happy to commend the bill to the House.