Finlayson Christopher: Ministerial Statements — Islamic State Conflict—Government ResponseText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFinlayson Christopher: Ministerial Statements — Islamic State Conflict—Government Response[Sitting date: 05 November 2014. Volume:701;Page:630. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service):I am taking a call in this House as Minister responsible for the GCSB and Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service. The Prime Minister today gave a very important speech. He has said more than has ever been said in this country about some of the security threats facing this nation. Although there are very good reasons that we cannot talk about everything our security agencies do the Prime Minister has made the remarks he has made today because within the limits on what we can say we intend to say and explain whatever we can whenever we can. The threat to New Zealand from foreign fighters and would-be foreign fighters to which the Prime Minister has referred today should not be a cause for alarm. It should however serve as a reminder that the view that New Zealand exists in a benign strategic environment is misguided. As Mr McCully has said let us not think we are immune to the threats posed to other Western countries. We have all seen the increase in parliamentary security around these precincts over the past 2 weeks and a number of people in this place will have visited the Canadian Parliament. The shock felt in Ottawa 2 weeks ago attests to the completely unexpected nature of the violence. The threats we and our friends face are new threats and we have to respond in a considered manner but we must respond.First I want to endorse what other honourable members have said about humanitarian assistance. I think Mrs King put it very well when she explained the meeting that she and I had with members of the Iraqi community in Wellington just a couple of weeks ago. Their relatives are suffering greatly in places like Mosul and on the Nineveh Plain and desperately need our help and the help of other nations. In deciding to look at this area the Government has been very mindful not only of the realities that face New Zealand but of our international obligations. Mrs King—rightly in my opinion—referred specifically to UN Security Council Resolution 2178 adopted unanimously on 24 September 2014 under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter. Among other things the Security Council called on all member States in accordance with their obligations under international law to cooperate in efforts to address the threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters including preventing foreign terrorist fighters from crossing their borders. The Security Council also emphasised the importance of States ensuring that their domestic laws and regulations are fit for purpose in relation to their nationals who travel or attempt to travel to a State “other than their States of residence or nationality for the purpose of the perpetration planning or preparation of or participation in terrorist acts or the providing or receiving of terrorist training”.The Greens have singularly failed to acknowledge the substance of this resolution this afternoon—hardly surprising but very disappointing. I am disappointed in Kennedy Graham who pretty well knows off by heart every United Nations Security Council resolution when it suits him. But he did not address key issues raised by this resolution. New Zealand has legislation that on paper at least addresses these issues but the legislation is not perfect. It has gaps. It does not contain all the tools that we require. Our actions to date are in accordance with our international obligations but the problems we confront are not ours alone. They span countries and they span borders. We would be neglecting our responsibilities not to address them.The Prime Minister has this morning announced a very measured set of legislative changes that will enable the security services more effectively to carry out their work. He has also announced a $7 million financial boost for the SIS which will ensure that it can carry out the work we need it to do. For all the hyperbole we have heard from the usual suspects this afternoon the changes announced are very measured. No new criminal offences are being introduced. Several changes are being made to the law relating to passport cancellation. Several changes will make it easier for the New Zealand SIS to carry out operational activities that most New Zealanders would probably already think it is able to carry out.I want to mention the proposal to give the SIS an emergency surveillance power to conduct for no longer than 48 hours urgent surveillance before a warrant can be issued. Some people will contend this change is a sweeping one but it is not. They are wrong. It is important to put the proposal in context. The proposal echoes the power already given to certain authorities under section 48 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 which provides that a “device warrant need not be obtained for use of surveillance device in some situations of emergency or urgency”. That Act has been in force for over 2 years and the sky has not fallen in. It is not envisaged that this power will be used often by the SIS but it is important that the SIS has the ability to investigate an emergency situation where the circumstances require it. In order to use the power the SIS director will have to be satisfied that the threshold for issuing a warrant would be met. The Prime Minister has also made clear this morning his expectation that the SIS will report publicly on an annual basis outlining how many times it has used the power.So take this hypothetical: an emergency situation arises. I am the Minister responsible for the SIS. I am unavailable because I am in another part of the country. I am not back in Wellington for say 20 hours. If the matter is not addressed within 20 hours the consequences are very serious. The urgent surveillance is undertaken and then I return to Wellington to consider along with the Commissioner of Security Warrants a warrant. If we do not agree that the surveillance was urgent or warranted a warrant will not be signed. The material must then be destroyed. There is a disincentive to use the power for anything other than truly urgent situations.I look forward to the important debate the House will have when the legislation is introduced and in debating the legislation it should also be borne in mind that Parliament will need to consider all our security legislation over the coming months. As part of the extensive oversight measures introduced last year—and I acknowledge Mr Dunne for his work on that matter—section 21 of the Intelligence and Security Committee Act requires a “review of the intelligence and security agencies the legislation governing them and their oversight legislation … [to] be commenced before 30 June 2015;”. That means a comprehensive review of all relevant legislation. So there will be a lot of work for this House to do in this area in the next 12 to 18 months. As I said last week there has to be robust debate. No proposition should go unchallenged. Dissent can be a very good thing. It is in the public interest that members from all sides work together to ensure the law both substantive and procedural is fit for purpose and serves the interests of this country. That is why I hope the House will engage with the detail of these proposals with an eye on ensuring a quality legislative product rather than scoring political points.