Finlayson Christopher: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFinlayson Christopher: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee[Sitting date: 09 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1248. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service):I will address the point raised by Dr Graham in a minute but first I want to address questions that have been raised a number of times today about who would be caught by the definition of “terrorist act” and thereby become liable for having their passports cancelled. A number of hypothetical instances have been raised. I tried to deal with them in the second reading speech but I will just try to go through section 8A of the Passports Act and the proposed new schedule fairly carefully for the benefit of members again.The first point that I think needs to be noted is that each and every case is different and turns on its own facts so I cannot give absolute blanket assurances in the House about whether someone will or will not be caught. The second point to note is that the test to be satisfied before a passport can be cancelled has a very high threshold. There has to be sufficient information available to satisfy the Minister of Internal Affairs on reasonable grounds and the following conjunctive tests: that the person is a danger to the security of New Zealand or any other country because they intend to engage in or to facilitate a terrorist act that the danger cannot be effectively averted by other means and that the cancellation of the passport will prevent or effectively impede the ability of the person to carry out the intended action. All three limbs of the test must be satisfied before a passport could be cancelled. The third point is that the legislation does not prevent New Zealanders from travelling to these areas although we would strongly advise against it.That is the point I guess I was trying to make in the New Zealand Herald article that Mr Goff was referring to. I am not saying you cannot travel to these areas but I am saying it is not the cleverest thing that you could possibly do with your life assuming you will be able to hold on to your life if you go there. The only people who will be caught are those who intend to carry out or facilitate the terrorist act. Again—and it must be emphasised—when one looks at the ingredients of the clauses sufficient information would be required to satisfy the Minister on reasonable grounds that the elements of that definition have been met. So clearly take this hypothetical: if someone from the Assyrian Christian community in Wellington wants to go to Mosul to see their family and to provide whatever support they can in a horrific situation one could advise them against going but clearly there are no grounds to stop them going. Humanitarian workers and those who go to help their families in a dangerous environment will obviously not meet the test. If they join a group engaged in conflict they will not be caught simply because of that fact—in fact one could classify them in moral terms as freedom fighters. They must intend to commit or facilitate a terrorist act before their passport can be cancelled.The power is used sparingly. My advice is that only nine passports have been cancelled under section 8A since 2010. The other point that I made in my second reading speech and in the introduction to the Committee stage this afternoon is that the exercise of this power is subject to appeal to the High Court and with leave to the Court of Appeal. The court can substitute its own discretion for that of the Minister to confirm to modify to quash the decision so it is a real check and balance on the Minister’s decision making.Mr Goff and Dr Graham raised some interesting points about the definition of “terrorist act” and I hear what they are saying. We are not dealing with clause 5 as such in the debate tonight because it is already in the Terrorism Suppression Act but I for one think that the definition of “terrorist act” is a challenging one. It has been drafted to meet our international obligations and some amendments were made to it in 2007 I think to make our laws more consistent with our international obligations. It is used in a number of statutes and not just for passport cancellation. Careful consideration will need to be given to any amendments to make sure we continue to meet our international obligations. I am perfectly happy to raise that with other Ministers because I think it is something that could be included in a wider review of the criminal law applying to this area.In that context I refer honourable members to Part 5 of the Crimes Act. I have talked about looking at the “Crimes against public order”. Treason is there. Seditious offences were once there as Mr Mark knows but it was repealed in 2007. You have got slave dealing piracy and so on. It is fair to say I think that Part 5 is overdue for consideration. Part of the review of what we are doing will involve looking at Part 5. In that context one could actually take a good look at the definition of terrorism but not simply—well the point I want to emphasise is that we have to be consistent with our international obligations and the definition is used in a number of statues. So I am very happy to look at that because it is probably timely to do so.The other point I would make about reviews—and this comes from section 21 I think it is of the Intelligence and Security Committee Amendment Act 2013—is that what we are going to be doing next year which has to be commenced before 30 June 2015 is a review of the intelligence and security agencies the legislation governing them and their oversight legislation. Some of the points that Mr Goff made about the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—I think they were very cogent points. All that is up for review in the period of 2015.What I hope will happen is that both the reviewers and the Intelligence and Security Committee will be consulted. I will make a point of independently consulting Mr Goff and Mr Shearer on the reviewers the terms of reference of the review and so on. The reviewers will be able to look at this area in 2015 and then there will be ample time in 2016 for a full select committee process and then a principled debate on whatever emerges with a view to concluding that before the sunset period hooks in which will be as has been confirmed in the legislation tonight 31 March 2017.I think that there is ample opportunity to have a good look at all these matters both the sedition questions that was raised by Mr Peters—well good luck to him in his quixotic quest to exhume sedition. Certainly in terms of Part 5 of the Act the public order offences and the definition of “terrorist act” all that can be looked at as a separate piece of work.