Tabuteau Fletcher: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTabuteau Fletcher: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee[Sitting date: 09 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1243. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First):I just plead to your patience and take this time to acknowledge the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee the members of that select committee their efforts and their work. I acknowledge that on the other side of the Chamber there were some hard questions asked. I acknowledge especially the work of those of my peers sitting on the left-hand side of the table who would constantly and diligently dig and try to understand what the Government was trying to achieve. We speak today of compromise but I would put it to the Committee that no compromise has been reached. There has been no compromise on warrantless surveillance. There has been no compromise on the use of video surveillance. There has been no compromise on access to passports. There has been no compromise on the access of the SIS to the database of our customs agents. There has been no compromise as to the oversight of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Her role remains the same.Specifically for example we talk about warrantless surveillance. We have already had quite detailed discussions about it and I acknowledge that the definition has been refined. Mr Mitchell spoke about the straightforward nature of reading the Terrorism Suppression Act but I put it to you that although it is straightforward to read from the page it is another thing to interpret the intent of those words and exactly what it is they are trying to achieve. When we come to the conversation around a compromise actually in my humble opinion from my time on the select committee and from the numerous submissions I have heard no compromise has been reached. We will still have this warrantless surveillance and we will still have video surveillance.On video surveillance the advisers spoke about how we are using chunks of legislation and we are pulling them together to make this omnibus legislation straightforward and robust in that there is an existing template and therefore we should be satisfied that it is robust. However—and this was spoken to by numerous members in the Committee already—the threshold for video surveillance for those other members of law enforcement agencies as opposed to surveillance and information-gathering agencies is so much more rigorous. I put it to the Minister that although we must never confuse the roles of our law enforcement agencies and the roles of our surveillance and information-gathering agencies we have had it put to us—it has been argued and it has been put to the public—that there is a sense of urgency that we know something is going to happen and that we must react to it. So I simply ask the question: under the Search and Surveillance Act the police already have these rights—Dr Kennedy Graham: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague and I do not wish to shatter the crystal that was prevailing in the select committee but correct me if I am wrong—my understanding is that officials are to relate only to the Minister in the chair and not to other members of Parliament.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry. I hear what you say and that is correct. All right—we will not do it again.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: What I was saying was that there is almost an argument that we are at a stage where there is a supposed clear and present danger. Those words were not used; those are my words. I concede that point. But if this is the case and we are in such a state and if this is so urgent then the police have the right to do what it is we now ask of our SIS agency. Given the nature of the process we have been through and given the lack of voice from the New Zealand public—actually I put this to you. During the select committee I mentioned how there were some robust questions asked even from those on the Government side. What actually seemed to be the most common answer—and it was an answer said with a level of frustration and disappointment—was that in fact we cannot answer your questions. The submitters told us quite openly when we asked them: “What would you do? How would you interpret that? What do you think would happen then?”. The submitters replied quite clearly and with a tone in their voice: “You have not given us enough time to consider the implications and the ramifications of what it is you are asking.”There is no compromise reached in this Committee today. Everything that was in this bill in its original form will come to pass albeit with different words but the outcome will be the same. I will just use the rest of my time to say—I have made a note—that it has been commented on by the media about the increase in the powers of the inspector-general. I just want to make it very clear to the New Zealand public and to the members in the Chamber today that the powers of the inspector-general have not changed due to this legislation. This was not within the purview of the select committee or of this piece of legislation. What was increased—and I acknowledge the efforts of the members across the way there—was not the powers of the inspector-general but rather the obligations of the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service and the Director of Security and their obligations to the inspector-general. I acknowledge that that created an element where reporting and the submission of information to an independent body were required.But this conversation about the role and the responsibilities of the inspector-general has come up in this House before. The inspector-general herself described her role and her job as a role that is for the benefit of the Minister. How can we then say that the inspector-general will hold the Minister to account when under the legislation for that exact position and by her own words she exists for the benefit of the Minister? She will come back and say “You have done wrong.” but she will say this to the Minister who has done wrong. She will report back to the very person who is liable and must be held to account albeit along with the warrants officer. This is what this legislation is saying. This is what the clause will tell her to do.Then we spoke about her reporting powers and their public nature and how we are publicly accountable. Again her own words were that the reports are reduced and cut in such a way as to not give away State secrets. That is absolutely right. There might be ongoing cases where we cannot compromise the missions of our security agents and we would not want them to do that. We need them to get the bad guys—we do. But we are not achieving what we set out to do. The inspector-general gave eight recommendations I believe in her latest report. Those recommendations were taken on board by the Minister and we are informed that they will be acted upon. That may be precedent but it does not mean that in the future the Minister will not simply say: “Thank you for your recommendations. I choose to ignore them and we will carry on as we currently are.” Thank you.