Goff Phil: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee[Sitting date: 09 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1223. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):If substantial changes had not been made to this bill by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee I would not be standing up here prepared to support it through its second reading and remaining stages and nor would the Labour Party.Frankly the process by which this bill has been handled was an absolute travesty and I say that with due respect to Jami-Lee Ross’s comments about the way that the select committee members cooperated. They did cooperate and they did get a better bill out of it. But to bring in a bill and in 2 weeks take it from first reading through to the final reading which will happen this evening is not good enough. It is against the democratic process of this House and against the right of New Zealanders to be properly consulted on and participate in legislation. The very worst type of process to ram through in those circumstances is a piece of legislation that gives substantial powers to a body that operates in secret because of its very nature.What we should be doing in this House is not only going through legislation comprehensively and thoroughly and maximising the public’s right to participate but we should be building up the public’s confidence that the powers that we give to organisations are properly put in place. When you have 2 days—just 2 days—for the public to prepare and present submissions it is not the way that a democratic process should operate.Ironically normally we would have advertised this bill across a range of newspapers and it would have been less high-profile than it was. It was the Government’s decision to act in this way that got it on Television One and TV3. The submissions flooded in. We got just under 600 of them and we would have had more submissions but for the fact that that the web went down under pressure on a couple of occasions.I have got to say that there was one thing in common amongst all the submissions that were made on this bill. Whether it was the lofty New Zealand Law Society with a submission prepared by 10 of our most eminent jurists in the country or whether it was by the New Zealander who was making his or her first ever submission to a select committee they all said one thing. They said: “This process is wrong. It stinks. You can’t expect us to respond in 48 hours and do the job that we need to on this legislation.”This legislation should never have gone through in this time frame. If it were not for the fact that we worked extraordinary hours to hear everybody who was capable of getting to the committee and for the fact that the Government relented on its determination to push through things under urgency that were not justified to be pushed through under urgency we would not be supporting it.I have to say that one of the downsides of the way that we dealt with the legislation was the way in which the community that feels that it is the most targeted and affected by it was not engaged as thoroughly as it should have been—that is the Muslim community. David Shearer and I met with members of the Muslim community early on when this bill was first being talked about. They expressed their concerns to us about it and they expressed their concerns to the select committee. Their concerns were of a number of different natures. One was that they said they are New Zealanders: “We are not Muslims in New Zealand; we are Muslims from New Zealand. This is our country. Why is it that we cannot get to talk to the Prime Minister about something that we think will intimately affect the lives of our community? We cannot even get to talk to the Minister for Ethnic Communities. They did not have time.”—they did not have time. They said to us: “It is funny that when it was about halal killing of export meat when the markets were closing and the Government desperately needed the help of the New Zealand Federation of Islamic Associations the Ministers were over us like a rash. But when it is about us and the impact that this is having on us they are not to be seen.”They said—and there were a number who made this point—that because this awful organisation called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant misuses the name “Islamic” the more the community hears the name “Islamic State” the more it thinks that people who look different because they have a beard or wear a head shawl must be terrorists. What we were getting from the Muslim community were comments that they were being abused in the streets and they said it did not help when the Prime Minister talked about beheadings.I have got to say to my colleagues in New Zealand First that it does not help when your leader Winston Peters talks about how we should not be bringing these people in from Muslim countries—if I heard it right. I have got an electorate full of people who have come from the Middle East to escape oppression and have come here for a better life for their families. They are decent New Zealanders. They are hard-working. They are so grateful for the chance to have a decent and peaceful life in this country. I have got to tell you that when there is a problem in the Muslim community because some hothead or idiot talks about doing terrorist acts they are the first to come down on those individuals and put them in their place. If they cannot do it themselves they are the first to go to the authorities and report it.If we want to know what will protect us most against terrorist acts in this country it is not just this piece of legislation—it is mainly not this piece of legislation. It is about the fact that we have developed in New Zealand by and large a harmonious and an inclusive community; it is about the fact that the people in our Muslim community are decent people and moderate people; and it is about the fact that through not engaging in the Iraq war in 2003 which was built on a lie and because we are fiercely independent about being a nuclear-free New Zealand the world sees New Zealand as an independent country and a decent and a fair country. Those are the things that most protect us against terrorism. If we lose those things then we are at greater danger.There is a role for security services in New Zealand. There are people in this country who are alienated and who are personality disordered—that is the kindest way I can describe them. When they get a twisted philosophy such as the ISIS philosophy that tells them—online all the time—that they should be out there committing terrorist acts and they will be rewarded with martyrdom and life for eternity because they do it that is a risk to New Zealand.I do not want to exaggerate the risk. Our threat level set by the Government is low. “Low” means “a terrorist attack is possible but not likely”. It is ironic because in Australia across the Ditch it is at a high level. In the United Kingdom it is at an extreme level. We are at a low level but it could still happen. Sensible powers given to security intelligence organisations that use those powers within the law and do not abuse the powers are a sensible precaution.I am aware that the Security Intelligence Service does not always use its powers sensibly. I am a product of a misguided effort by the Director of Security to engage in a smear campaign through the Prime Minister’s office to tell lies about me. But this is not about utu; this is about New Zealand and doing the right thing. We are doing the right thing in supporting this bill but I want to say that the safeguards that we put in are critical. The narrowing of the scope which would have given these intrusive powers to the SIS right across the scope of its activities has been brought back narrowing to the point that might possibly justify the legislation.I want to say one final thing to the Minister because it is an important point. I am in favour of stopping people leaving New Zealand who wish to contribute to an organisation that commits crimes against humanity and war crimes. I am not in favour of stopping New Zealanders who go to fight for a cause that they believe in. It might be the Kurdish people in my electorate who want to support their family in Kobani against ISIS or it might be the Syrian families in your electorate or my electorate who want to fight for democracy against the oppressive regime of al-Assad.We were assured at the select committee that these people would not be affected by this legislation so I was a little concerned when I heard the Minister on Q+A suggesting otherwise. I would like in the Committee stage an assurance from the Minister that people who go to fight for what is right will not have the freedoms that they are guaranteed under our New Zealand Bill of Rights taken away from them. Yes—an end to those who are going to fight for terrorist organisations committing crimes against humanity but not an end to people who want to fight for what they believe in to protect their families and do the right thing.