Graham Kennedy: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGraham Kennedy: General Debate[Sitting date: 03 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4266. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): At question time today just a moment ago I asked the Acting Attorney-General whether the terms of reference of our intelligence review would be amended to reflect the views of other legislatures that are moving to protect civil liberties. This included the US Congress which yesterday passed the USA Freedom Act to end the mass collection of metadata. Minister Adams was not especially forthcoming in her reply. She stressed the adequacy of the terms of reference and then confessed that she basically lacked the ministerial competence to comment further on the question the question having been passed on to her by the Prime Minister. So let us analyse the issues that were passed over so lightly by the Acting Attorney-General. The terms of reference contained two general tasks. The first is to determine whether the legislative frameworks of the intelligence agencies are well placed to protect New Zealand’s national security arrangements while protecting human rights. The second is around whether there are sufficient safeguards to ensure the agencies act lawfully and maintain public confidence.Well if we are talking about public confidence it is time that New Zealand emulated the United States in restoring the principles of civil liberties laid down by Jefferson and cherished in the United States and presumably here as well. There is a distinction between the general review requirement that is in the statute and the precise terms of reference that the Attorney-General has crafted. The statute foresees a review of any matter relevant to the functions of effectiveness and efficiency of the agencies in their contribution to national security. But the terms of reference are more focused. They are on whether the legislative frameworks are well placed to protect national security while protecting human rights. It may be a coincidence and it is good to have human rights included but what we have here is national security as the primary value and central framework with human rights as a secondary value something to be protected from the onslaught.A specific task identified in the terms of reference is whether the recent foreign terrorist fighters legislation should be extended or modified beyond March 2017. This is an issue of some moment. Just last Friday the Security Council adopted its latest presidential statement on foreign terrorist fighters. The overriding concern is that foreign terrorist fighters have increased in numbers to 25000 from 100 countries. Receiving one back into one’s own country is proving too dyspeptic for Australia but New Zealand at least is maintaining for the moment a level head on the matter. The Attorney-General’s statement to the council had many good elements—in particular the stress he placed on countering violent extremism through supporting individuals in communities in having a positive stake in society. The key he said is to be inclusive not exclusive—to integrate not marginalise. We agree and commend him for this. But that approach needs to be buttressed with legislative reform on mass surveillance. It needs to lead with the principle of human rights and make national security compatible with the inalienable rights of the individual.That Jeffersonian principle has just been rediscovered in the United States in the past few days following the loss of its constitutional compass 14 years ago. Sanity at last is being restored. The USA Freedom Act replacing the notorious Patriot Act limits the Federal Government’s ability to collect phone data. It requires the FBI to formally declare a statement of facts showing reasonable grounds to believe that the information sought is relevant to a particular investigation and that the facts give rise to a reasonable articulable suspicion of activities associated with a foreign power or its agent. Under the terms of reference here in New Zealand the review will also have regard to any additional matters that arise during the review as agreed by the Attorney-General. We therefore recommend that the Attorney-General notify now in writing in the New Zealand Gazette that the modification of intrusive surveillance powers and restoration of civil liberties as legislated in the United States be taken up as a matter that has arisen and that New Zealand consider emulating the US initiative.