Graham Kennedy: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGraham Kennedy: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee[Sitting date: 09 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1231. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green):I rise to address the two Supplementary Order Papers that the Green Party has put forward in my name—Supplementary Order Paper 41 and Supplementary Order Paper 42. I wish to try to explain those and explore them with the Committee and respectfully invite the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service to address them and explain his Government’s reasons perhaps necessarily for opposing them. They are put forward with constructive intent. As I think Mr Chairman you mentioned we are now in the Committee stage where we have accepted the underlying purpose of the bill even though the Green Party opposed it and so we are constructively seeking to improve the bill. Supplementary Order Paper 41 essentially brings forward the sunset date from 31 March 2017 to 30 June 2015 in respect of all three pieces of legislation. The purpose of that is to ensure that this bill would expire in advance of the review of the legislation. I have no further explanation for that other than to put it to the Committee for its consideration. We think the argument is sufficient to do that for reasons that no doubt are self-evident. If they are not accepted that will be the will of the Committee.I want to devote more of my time to Supplementary Order Paper 42 which has essentially a purpose clause. We do believe that the omission initially from the omnibus bill of a statement of general purpose was a major shortcoming. Now that it is to be divided into three bills we would simply recommend that the statement of general purpose be identical in each of those three amendments to those bills. The purpose of that is with a view to trying to get some clarity in it. I listened through the select committee hearings and also to the Minister this afternoon explaining a view that the three bills in their current form are “tolerably clear” which is a good play on words reflecting some of the select committee’s deliberations. Our response is that “tolerably clear” is not sufficient for legislation certainly in criminal legislation and also with equal force in legislation that essentially curtails civil liberties in the name of an expansion of State powers. It is not sufficient to have it tolerably clear. In our humble view it actually is not tolerably clear but even if it were that is not a sufficient threshold.Why do we say that? Here I am still sitting at the feet of the Minister and his governmental colleagues trying to understand the logical thread by which we get to where we are. What has happened in the last 12 months that has logically prompted us all the way through to a stage where we are planting covert surveillance cameras in bedrooms and bathrooms in the name of some new qualitative development? That is the question. If it is sufficient then the Government should have the capacity the will and the integrity to the people to make that blindingly clear—rigorously necessarily clear—to everybody’s satisfaction. We are not convinced that that has occurred yet so we have put a statement of purpose in.If I try to follow that logic that I was talking about I begin with the Prime Minister’s speech of 5 November and I take out two points. One is a game-changer to the security of New Zealand: “Much of that”—“much”; I grant you “much”—“is due to the rapid rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant or ISIL.” Further he said: “Should they return to New Zealand fully radicalised and skilled in fighting they would represent a significant threat …”. I recognise there are two components there: full radicalisation and fighting skill.Suppose I said I have been to the Middle East. I lived there 3 years. I have been there within the last couple of years. I have been there. I have returned. I tell you now I am not skilled in fighting. I could declare to the Committee that I am a pacifist. I am not; but let me declare hypothetically I am a pacifist. I then say I am tempted to conclude having listened to people around New Zealand that humanity should live under a universal caliphate with strong sharia law. Am I then fully radicalised? Am I a fully radicalised pacifist? I recognise that I would not meet the definition of terrorism—presumably—but I want to know whether I am radicalised. If we are going to pass an intrusive State power bill and it rests on the concept of full radicalisation the Government owes it to the people to also make clear what in the New Zealand Government’s humble view is full radicalisation. This is the basis of the Prime Minister’s speech.We then think right on the basis of that we look to the bill. The bill itself was introduced initially by the Minister on 25 November. Presumably it was introduced in his capacity as Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service. In its enthusiasm Hansard has written him up as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and there may need to be a correction if that has not occurred yet because that is a somewhat unfortunate Freudian slip. We look to the bill and we find no definition of “radicalisation” no definition of “foreign terrorist fighter” and no definition of the other phrase “other violent extremists”.We look to the explanatory note for help and the explanatory note says two things: the provisions of the bill reflect in part New Zealand’s international obligation to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolution 2178 which includes concern about people travelling to become foreign terrorist fighters and it urges States to restrict their movements. It says the provisions of the bill reflect “in part” Resolution 2178. So if it is only in part one would think that with a bill of this magnitude and import the Government would say what the other parts of the reasons were. But it does not—it is totally silent.We then look to the other part of the explanatory note which explains: “The bill is a response to the rapidly evolving threat of terrorism both locally and internationally.” And here is the critical statement: “It introduces short-term measures allowing the monitoring and investigation of foreign terrorist fighters and other violent extremists and the restriction and disruption of their travel.” That is the statement of purpose—the nearest thing we have in the bill. It is not defined. That is the statement of purpose. The two concepts are not defined.So the Green Party feels the need to have a statement of purpose with a definition in each of the three bills that would read as follows. The purpose of each bill is threefold: one it meets the obligations of Resolution 2178 “to combat threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts including those perpetrated by foreign terrorist fighters;”. That is word for word from Resolution 2178. The second one “ensures that such action by New Zealand remains consistent with its obligations under international human rights law” and refugee and humanitarian law. That is there in Resolution 2178. It is acknowledged in passing in the explanatory note. It is not in the context of the bill. It is not in the text of the bill. The third one “ensures that such action by New Zealand is not associated with any religion nationality or civilisation.”—the same thing taken from Resolution 2178.That gives a degree of balance in the bill. You are meeting the obligations under Resolution 2178 you are remaining consistent hopefully with all our human rights obligations and you are ensuring that the action does not cut across any actions associated with religion nationality or civilisation—and that is a trifold balance in the bill that is currently lacking. Then there is new subsection (3) defining the “foreign terrorist fighter” which is taken verbatim from Resolution 2178 as a person who travels to a State outside New Zealand for the purpose of perpetrating planning or preparation of a terrorist act or of providing or receiving terrorist training including in armed conflict. We seriously recommend that consideration be given to that.