Tabuteau Fletcher: Passports Amendment Bill Customs and Excise Amendment Bill New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTabuteau Fletcher: Passports Amendment Bill Customs and Excise Amendment Bill New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 09 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1264. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First):This has been a farce of a democratic process. This use of urgency by the National Government is an alarming trend that is happening more and more often. Does the National Government just not want to talk to the people whom it presumes to represent? Every single one of the submissions oral and written made special note of the ludicrous time frame given to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and also to everyday New Zealanders to give their input to select committee members. The anger and frustration of those who made the effort to turn up at such short notice before the select committee was highly highly evident.If this was all so urgent why did every other party in this House vote to break for the holidays this week? Why was New Zealand First the only party that asked the question: “Hold on why break so early? Don’t we have these very important issues to consider and put before the people of New Zealand?” New Zealand First was the only party that opposed these dates and this bill was just one of the many reasons why. But no the Government wanted to go on holiday.You cannot agree with the supposed changes to this bill when the entire process used to achieve that outcome was flawed in all of its parts. Our select committee heard from the likes of the Human Rights Commission the New Zealand Law Society the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties and the Legislation Advisory Committee. Every single one of those groups spoke about the travesty of the truncated process especially for this bill and the large and wide-reaching implications for all New Zealanders. You cannot in good conscience sit on that committee and agree with every single person who spoke to us. You cannot stand in this House and speak of this travesty of human justice state that this process has been a farce and then say we have reached a compromise and it is OK. You cannot say—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Do not bring me into the debate.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: It cannot be said—because we did not even get a chance to read every submission—that it is OK that we reached a compromise especially when no compromise has been reached.We still have a 3-year period on the cancellation of passports. We still have new warrantless surveillance rights. We still have new video surveillance rights. We still have the situation that evidence collected without a warrant can be retained by these security agencies. Every time we asked the question to those standing before us we got the same answer. Every time we asked “What do you think?” every time we asked “What would you have done instead?” every time we asked “What would you do?” we got the same answer and the answer was always accusatory. The answer was: “We don’t know. You didn’t give us enough time to think this through.”Sir Geoffrey Palmer said it best perhaps: “Where legislation is rushed it often goes wrong.”. I know and acknowledge that all of the select committee members in that room were looking to achieve the best for all New Zealanders but we 10 cannot and should not be the sole critique of legislation that alters the fundamental rights of all New Zealanders. We did not give New Zealanders a just chance to speak.We are told there is a threat and New Zealand First does not disagree that there is one. In fact members of this party have been part of New Zealand’s armed forces. We were willing to stand up then and we are willing to fight vehemently against terrorism now but this bill does not do that. However what is our threat warning? “Possible but not likely.” This Government’s urgency implies there is a clear and present danger. New Zealand First accepts that there is a threat and the security setting has changed but we think the threat does not justify this bill in these circumstances.I question also the pressure of the Cricket World Cup. During the Rugby World Cup the American team played on the 10th anniversary of 9/11. What was the solution at the time? They beefed up security. They did not change the law. They acted accordingly and they acknowledged that there might be a risk; they stated it was a low one. Our right to privacy and our human rights were left alone then and they should be left alone now.The Prime Minister has used the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) conflict in his rhetoric to justify the development and the extension of these intrusive powers. The UN Security Council Resolution 2178 asks New Zealanders to do all they can to restrict the movement of foreign terrorist fighters and rightfully so. We should not be letting New Zealanders take arms in support of terrorist organisations. But this rhetoric has inflamed many in New Zealand and has further isolated and marginalised good people whom New Zealand First would presume to support.We need to be considerate and measured. The Law Society accepts that the international situation is moving rapidly and that the national response must keep abreast as does New Zealand First. It finished by saying that this “is not synonymous with saying that any legislation should be enacted under urgency.” United Nations special rapporteur Ben Emmerson when submitting to the UN General Assembly in relation to Resolution 2178 commented that “Measures justified by reference to States’ duties to protect against the threat of terrorism should never be used as a Trojan horse to usher in wider powers of surveillance for unrelated governmental functions.”I have found some excellent words spoken on the rights of New Zealanders and much of the public fears that our rights are being eroded cut by cut. “We have an obligation to maintain the integrity of our democratic system or institutions and the systems and processes of Government. Here in New Zealand we often take our democratic freedoms for granted. We think they will always be there. We have a Bill of Rights which is supposed to protect our right to freedom of expression. What on Earth could go wrong?”. The quote continues: “I have a different view. I believe what Thomas Jefferson said—that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance … There are times when we have to stand up for our rights and the rights of our neighbours and friends and indeed the rights of people we totally disagree with or else these rights will begin to erode away.” That same man who spoke these so appropriate words some time ago is now the leader of our Government. Under his leadership this Government is instigating a system and a process that will undermine the very democratic principles that he spoke to not so long ago.New Zealand First recognises our commitment to the United Nations Security Council which requires us to prevent the travel of foreign terrorist fighters but we already have the power to do this. We can cancel passports now. But what about the rest of the obligations from the Security Council? What about the statement that we must reaffirm that member States must comply with their human rights obligations when fighting terrorism which notes that a failure to do so contributes to radicalisation? Where was this Government’s dialogue with religious faiths and ethnic groups? We were told in the select committee—openly and outright—that it had not taken place. Together with the tools and resources to prevent citizens from becoming terrorist fighters the Government should engage with civil society to address the problems of communities most at risk of recruitment and radicalisation and achieve their smooth and satisfactory social integration. That comes from a UN Security Council address.So far all this Government has done is to inflame potentially disaffected members of our society and it has achieved exactly what the UN Security Council warned us not to do. What I heard in the debate amongst select committee members was an intelligent thrust and counter-thrust of arguments and ideas. I developed a high level of respect for my peers especially on the left. But what I observed over and above the detail was the public’s repeated and passionate argument that this process is flawed and undemocratic and as has been stated many times a rushed process can lead to flawed legislation. We do not know we have not taken the time and we will not find out whether it is flawed.The Government and Labour argue that there is a sunset clause but it is too long too far away for those who would get caught up in what history—very recent history—has shown us to be an abused system with security agencies that are looking for an enemy of the State instead targeting enemies of the Prime Minister and other members of this House. To conclude beyond all of these issues information that is gathered without a warrant under this bill can be retained and used even if no warrant is granted and no subsequent warrant is sought. To clarify information gathered without a warrant can be used by New Zealand security agencies. Nothing has changed in the rushed committee process. New Zealand First opposes this legislation.