Ross Jami-Lee: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoss Jami-Lee: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee[Sitting date: 09 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1245. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany):I rise to take a call to comment on and to rebut some of the comments being made by New Zealand First because I believe that the views expressed by Tracey Martin are somewhat misguided and very different from the very specific advice that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee got during its consideration.I want to refer members to the departmental report. I think that Mrs Martin will probably enjoy reading a number of the clauses in this departmental report because they do dispel some of the myths that have been spoken about firstly in the submissions and then in this Chamber.There is a strong view held by some—and Mrs Martin expressed it—that the police can simply be called on by the SIS to exercise warrantless surveillance on behalf of the SIS. Well that simply cannot happen. In 1956 the SIS was separated from the police. The SIS and the police have very separate roles to play in our country. The police are all about enforcing the law. They are all about ensuring that crimes are detected and that people are put before the courts for those crimes. The SIS’s role is very different. The SIS’s role is to ensure that New Zealand’s security is taken into consideration and that there are detection powers in place so that New Zealand’s security can be protected.There is a good section in this departmental report that points out that “The NZSIS Act expressly states that it is not a function of the NZSIS to enforce measures for security. NZSIS consequently does not detain people or bring prosecutions. Investigating and bringing prosecutions for criminal offences including terrorism offences is a function of the Police.” The very reason why this bill is here is that there are instances where New Zealand’s security is at threat and the New Zealand SIS does not currently have the powers to conduct surveillance in a timely manner to keep New Zealand safe.Tracey Martin: Video surveillance.JAMI-LEE ROSS: No Mrs Martin you are incorrect. You are incorrect—sorry Mr Chair the member is incorrect. The police cannot undertake that power on behalf of the SIS. The police and the SIS have very different roles to play and that is an important point.I also want to refer to the comments that she made about the passport provisions. She is of the view that passport provisions in this bill are insufficient and unnecessary. There are also some very good comments in the departmental report that highlight the advice the select committee received—advice that Mr Tabuteau could have passed on if he wanted to. Some are of the view that the passport changes are too lengthy—that there should not be the power to cancel passports for 3 years.The very important comments that we received from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet officials were that passport cancellation for 1 year is inadequate in some cases because individuals continue to remain motivated to travel. They also go on to say—and this is a very important point—that “Deferring notice of passport cancellations was considered justified in cases where notifying the person concerned could jeopardise the intelligence operation and in some cases increase the threat to public safety.” So everything you do with the legislation is about balancing the rights of individuals with the need to ensure New Zealand is kept safe to ensure that New Zealand’s threats—which are out there and they are very real—are kept contained.If there is a possibility that initiating further action under the existing sections of the Passports Act could endanger a security and intelligence operation could increase the threat to New Zealand then I do believe that there is justification for the Minister of Internal Affairs in certain extreme circumstances to cancel a passport for 3 years.I finally just want to point out the changes that were made around the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security because I do not think they can just be glossed over. When the bill was first sent to the select committee the inspector-general very much had a role of receiving information once unwarranted surveillance was undertaken. The committee mulled over this quite a lot. We were very firm in the view that the inspector-general’s role should not simply be one where she receives reports when the unwarranted surveillance power is initiated but in fact she should have the power to investigate. Rather than just the inspector-general initiating investigations on her own behalf the legislation itself should say that the matter be referred to her for investigation. It is a very important point because simply receiving advice that unwarranted surveillance powers have been used is very different from receiving that advice and being required to investigate.It is important that we give New Zealanders confidence that if these powers have to be used there is sufficient monitoring over the top. That monitoring is by way of the inspector-general. If this bill goes through she has to investigate when that power is used. Additionally there was concern that if the destruction of materials when they are no longer required does not take place that first the fine is insufficient and two there needs to be additional monitoring around that.The committee also inserted clauses where the inspector-general is required to investigate if any matters are not destructed and if any matters—Tracey Martin: Are they shared with the “Five Eyes”? Are they shared with the other members of the “Five Eyes” and then destroyed?JAMI-LEE ROSS: I cannot hear what she is going on about. The powers around the inspector-general were increased in that matter. We also increased the fine that is put in place.We did consider these matters very seriously. I disagree fundamentally with Mr Tabuteau that the bill has not changed. It is very evident if someone goes through this bill that a lot of compromise was discussed here. A lot of changes to the bill have been made—changes that go so far as to get New Zealand’s main Opposition party coming to the table and saying yes these powers are necessary for New Zealand’s security situation. They are compromises that are designed to give New Zealanders confidence that whilst we look after New Zealand’s security intelligence information and take those issues seriously we also ensure there is proper monitoring in place and that is exactly what the changes here do.