Goff Phil: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 25 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:810. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. That did take quite a while—actually almost as long as what the Government is giving the public of New Zealand to consider this legislation. I think the onus is very clearly on the Government to justify why legislation introduced today has 4 working days for the public to put together submissions and be heard on it before it is reported back next Tuesday. I have been in this House a long time and I cannot think of any legislation of this nature that has been rammed through with such unseemly haste. If the Government were to make the case to us that there were real and imminent threats and that without this legislation New Zealanders would be at much greater risk I would listen to that case. But I have not heard that case put tonight. It has not been put tonight.Our threat level is low. That is the Government’s official threat level—low. What does low mean? Low means that a terrorist threat is possible but it is not likely. The Australian threat level is much higher yet the Australian Government has still been prepared to put its parallel legislation through a full select committee process in both Houses of Parliament—the Senate and the House of Representatives. In the United Kingdom the threat level is either high or extreme. It is much higher than New Zealand’s. The risks are much higher. Has the Conservative Government in the United Kingdom suggested that it rush through legislation in 2 days? No it said that it is putting it on a fast track. Do you know what a fast track means? That it hopes to have it back in the House of Commons by May of next year—May of next year. So our two Westminster democracies that we would compare ourselves with have chosen to deal with similar legislation in a quite different way.Normally when we introduce a bill to the House we give people 4 to 6 weeks to put together considered submissions. We hear submissions over 2 to 4 weeks. We then wait for a departmental report and that might take a couple more weeks and then we have a couple of weeks for consideration and deliberation. On a fast track we might do that in 14 weeks; on a normal track we would take 6 months. This Government wants to do it in a week—1 week. I am asking sincerely for the Government to put up any speaker who can tell us why the threat is so urgent in New Zealand that we have to disregard normal democratic process and have 4 working days to hear submissions.David Shearer and I have worked closely with the Government. I am sorry that the Government has not worked closely with New Zealand First and the Green Party. David Shearer and I suggested last week that the bill could have been introduced last week so that it was on the Table for everybody to read. The Government chose not to take our advice on that. It did take our advice that it should go out last week to a number of important organisations like the Council for Civil Liberties the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions the New Zealand Law Society the Human Rights Commission the Privacy Commissioner and the New Zealand Federation of Islamic Associations. I am glad the Government picked that suggestion up but there are hundreds and hundreds of people out there who will be worried about this legislation and will want a chance to have their voice heard. What is a democracy about? It is about giving ordinary New Zealanders the chance to have a say on the legislation that rules their lives. Are they being given this chance? Most New Zealanders will be excluded from having their say by this Government’s decision.Chris Hipkins’ amendment is a very sensible reasonable one. If the Government is really worried let us come back early from our holidays. Is the Government prepared to do that? I do not think so. What is wrong with 10 February as a date by which the select committee reports back on this legislation? Why do we need time? Because the issues we are considering in this legislation are fundamentally important issues. Yes we have a responsibility in this House to protect and safeguard New Zealanders. We also have a responsibility to protect and safeguard their rights. We are introducing to the SIS for the first time the right to have surveillance without a warrant for 48 hours. I am worried about that. Why does it take 48 hours? That seems totally unreasonable to me. Will we be able to consider that properly in 4 working days?We are introducing legislation that will take passports off people while they are overseas. Maybe in some cases it is necessary but I want to know the implications of that. Have we got a watertight guarantee that we are not going to leave people stranded on the other side of the world unable to come home? I am told that the intention will be to give them travel documents. But that is not in the bill. How do we know that it is going to happen? We are going to give visual surveillance powers to the SIS. It may well be justified but let us consider it carefully because this is another intrusion into the lives of people. I am not worried about the terrorist; I am worried about ordinary innocent people finding that they have had an invasion of their privacy and a loss of rights that might not be proper. When we deny passports to people there are some cases where we ought to do that. But I want to know that the Government has thought this through thoroughly and that we do not take passports off the family that happens to be Islamic and from Pakistan or Iraq or Syria—I have all of those communities in my electorate. I want to know that when they have got a wedding or a funeral to attend there is not going to be an arbitrary removal of their passport. What are the safeguards? Have we covered ourselves off properly on this?Let us look at the way this legislation has been handled. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has been around all year. Why did we leave it until now 3 weeks before we rise for Christmas to bring in the legislation? Why did the Government not act earlier? The officials were given 4 weeks to do a review. Normally officials would do a review like this over a year. So they may have made mistakes. I looked at the departmental disclosure statement. How many members of the Government ranks have read this and have spoken on it? Any? No you have not. What does it say? External consultation. Has there been any external consultation on the policy to be given effect by this bill? It says: “Consultation occurred within Government.” That is nice—within Government. It says: “External consultation was not undertaken given the nature of the subject matter addressed by the bill”—I do not know why that would be the case—“and the limited time available to conduct the review and develop legislation.” So we rush the officials to prepare a report in 4 weeks. We do no external consultation. We give ordinary New Zealanders a period of time that they cannot possibly meet to make submissions and we are dealing with basic constitutional issues here that we desperately need to get right because if we do not get them right it will be counter-productive to the objective of the legislation.This is an appalling abuse of process. There will be 4 working days for New Zealanders—actually they do not have 4 working days to make a submission; they have got 2 working days. If they are lucky they are listening to the debate tonight and they can say: “Hell we’d better do something quickly.” Most of them will not even know that there is a bill here before the date for closing submissions comes upon them. How can that be good? How many times have we seen in this House the Government putting legislation through in haste and getting it wrong? There is a reason why we have a select committee process. It is so that people can have an input so that people can have confidence about the legislation that we are passing and so that we can bring people onside with what we are doing so that they understand that what we are trying to do is in the wider interests of New Zealand and that we are listening to them so we get it right. There are huge risks in doing this. I put it to you that there are very few risks in allowing this legislation to be heard at the select committee and reported back by 10 February next year. It would still be fast-tracked but at least it would give people the reasonable opportunity to make submissions on this bill to help make sure we get it right.This is an abuse of process. This has not been justified. I am waiting and waiting for the Government side to come out with an argument as to why it is doing this. I am listening in good faith and I am hearing nothing—nothing—that justifies rushing this legislation through. I will be sympathetic to elements of this legislation but I am not at all sympathetic to the way the Government is trying to ram this through the House because I believe that we will get fundamental things wrong and we will act in haste and repent at leisure on legislation that does not have the effect we want it to have—to protect New Zealanders their safety and their rights.