Little AndrewTERRORISM SUPPRESSION (CONTROL ORDERS) BILLFirst ReadingHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move That the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill and at the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 3 December 2019 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 191 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).The Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill addresses what is increasingly a pressing issue an impending issue and a very important issue and I wanted to give a little bit of background about where we've got to and why we've got to this point today. This bill follows a major review commissioned by this Government into our Terrorism Suppression Act. That Act will be known to some members of this House. It was found in 2008 as a result of events to be full of gaps and to be largely unworkable. That was the commentary at the time including by the police and as I recall the then Commissioner of Police as well as the Solicitor-General.In spite of that over the following 10 years nothing really happened to it but this Government from September last year commenced a review of that legislation. It is the primary piece of legislation dealing with terrorism in this country and we have to get it right.From the outset of the review one of the issues that needed to be considered was the question of whether we have the means to deal with people who pose a risk to the community but don't come under our criminal justice system particularly where they have committed a terrorist act and especially where that is offshore. That is to abbreviate that issue the issue of the returning foreign terrorist fighter. So the possibility of returning foreign terrorist fighters has been around for a while. Now that issue has sharpened up in the middle of this year as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria caliphate collapsed following the clearance of the Middle Euphrates River Valley in Syria and also following comments by a New Zealand passport holder a New Zealand citizen who had publicly made calls about his impending return to New Zealand and that he was seeking to return to New Zealand. That was of course Mark Taylor otherwise known as Mohammad Daniel.I say that because there is an actual risk that we are dealing with and there are some members in this House who get the intelligence risk assessments. One of those is the Leader of the Opposition so he is fully aware of the risk that New Zealand is facing because of the rapidly changing situation in Syria at the moment.At the point of the collapse of the caliphate the Government made the decision that we would put in place as quickly as we could a control orders regime to deal with the possibility of those in that conflict zone with the rights to turn to New Zealand coming back to New Zealand and posing a potential risk to the community. It was intended then as it is now to keep it narrowly focused because this is by and large an interim measure pending the completion of the full review of the Terrorism Suppression Act. I might say that at that time the National Party was briefed on the issue on exactly those points—this was coming it would be narrowly focused and largely interim in nature.I might say also that as a result of the consultation within Government and the three parties that make up Government the Green Party had said that they would not support such measures. Nevertheless the legislation was developed and there was consultation throughout that and the Green Party continued to assert their view that they would not support it. Nevertheless it was endorsed by Government the bill in its complete form was provided to the National Party the National Party had it for a week and the National Party then said a week later apparently following a caucus meeting that they would support the bill to the first reading—and in fact then concluded their message by saying We look forward to the announcement as to timing." No conditions were attached to that support. That is unremarkable; that's the sort of thing that the Labour Party at least did when it was in Opposition dealing with national security legislation. Because national security is important you support it and if there are issues with it you deal with it through the process that you then have.I want to come back to subsequent events a little later in my comments. I want to very quickly summarise what the bill does. The bill allows the police to make an application to the High Court for a control order in relation to somebody largely assessed as having committed terrorist acts overseas.There are some conditions around that. The terrorist acts have to be terrorist acts that accord with the New Zealand definition of that term; so it's not what another jurisdiction says. Now if a judge is satisfied that a person has committed terrorist acts overseas then the judge may make an order imposing appropriate and proportionate controls on that person. That can include electronic monitoring that could include a requirement to reside at a specific address that could include reporting to the police and there are a number of others as well. There's a fair amount of flexibility. You want the judge to make a judgment—to make the order. The order is then served on the person. If they are across the border if they are already in the country they have an option about whether their application is made on notice or without notice. In any event the person who is the subject of the order—there is a requirement: they are advised that they can review the order and they are entitled to legal aid in order to do so. An order cannot last for more than two years but there is a right to renew the order two more times so that a control order can be in place for up to six years. There has been engagement over the bill in recent days and following the National Party confirming in writing that they would support the bill to first reading without at that time communicating any conditions to it they a few hours later then announced they wanted some changes to the bill. Some of those I would describe as unnecessarily Draconian. They later communicated that if they didn't get changes to the bill they might vote against the bill in the first reading. Later they said in response to a question from a journalist that they probably would support the bill. And then today they have announced that they won't support the bill. I can tell the House that I met with the Leader of the Opposition on Monday evening. We went through the issues that the National Party had. Following that meeting and following consideration of the representations made at that meeting my office got back to the office of the Leader of the Opposition and listed four things that I thought the Government could agree to that would improve the bill. A short time later the Leader of the Opposition's office came back and said they wanted more things. I have to say that following the events of last week I engaged in discussions with the Green Party. They last Friday indicated that they were keen to discuss the bill and the issues they had with it and whether or not they might find the basis on which to agree to it. Now the Green Party as I said was involved in consultation with the bill throughout the usual Government processes and during that time had made no counter-proposal but I dealt with some proposals from the Green Party over the weekend. So that is where we are and it is unfortunate that there has been what I think is frankly blatant party politicking in relation to this issue—and that is even after efforts to reach agreement. So I conclude my comments on the introduction of this bill with a message to all parties in this Parliament that this is an issue of national security. There is the possibility of at least one person who poses a serious risk to the community in this country returning in the immediate future and that risk is real and it is rising every day. It is the first duty of every Government to ensure the safety of its people and often a judgment has to be made about the level of the threat that is posed and therefore the measures that are provided to deal with it. Right now New Zealand has people—citizens in a conflict zone—who voluntarily went there to engage in or to support an extremist violent movement. Those people are entitled to return to New Zealand and they could do so at any time. This is real. As a Minister I don't have a choice about whether I weigh up these facts and make a judgment and whether I respond to the risks and the threats. I have done so. The responsibility of being in Government means being responsible and exercising the burdens and powers of Government. The Greens are part of the Government and they have that responsibility. To the National Party they wish to be in Government one day; they must exercise that responsibility. But as another large party in Parliament I say it is their duty to show that responsibility at all times. I commend this bill to the House."