Shearer David: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShearer David: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee[Sitting date: 09 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1250. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert):Can I just start by thanking the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service Christopher Finlayson for clarifying those points. I think that is useful. “Committing or facilitating a terrorist act” I think encompasses it and it also puts that explanation in context with his comments on the weekend. I think if we are required to look at this legislation in the context of a court case or whatever in the future those points will be helpful in terms of where we want to go with it.I also think that it would be useful to look at the definition of terrorism. It has evolved significantly with what has happened over the last few years and I think the review if it was able to look at that definition would take into account many of the comments that we received in terms of submissions and some of the questions we were asking ourselves as well.I just want to comment on Mr Tabuteau’s contribution just before the dinner break. I have to say it has been one of the few times I actually wholeheartedly agree with the comments of Jami-Lee Ross. I do not think I could fault them actually.Jami-Lee Ross: You’re hurting my career.DAVID SHEARER: Yeah I know.Ron Mark: A coalition coming up!DAVID SHEARER: A grand coalition—somebody else is going to be squeezed out!There were extraordinary compromises in this bill. When we look at the first bill that we were confronted with and what we have got now we have got a much better bill I think and a much tighter bill. It is much more confined to what the issues were in front of us. Quite apart from the process which we have made comment on before I actually do believe that we have come a long way and we should actually acknowledge that. I think we have landed pretty well when we consider that this is a temporary piece of legislation that is meant to last for a pretty short period of time.There are a couple of issues in and around that. I mean there was a comment made by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security about her role being to advise the Minister. I actually think that the word “advise” is something we need to look at because to some extent we see the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security very much being the watchdog. In fact we have increased that power within this bill—and I think Mark Mitchell mentioned this in his contribution—so that she has a greater ability to look into the various parts of what this bill is setting up to do. The “advise” word—I mean it is not “facilitate” “help” or whatever you were mentioning Mr Tabuteau. Actually the word was “advise”. I think there is probably some clarity around that that the review could possibly take up as well.I have to say again—and I think I said it in the second reading speech—that we were very impressed with the ability of the inspector-general to conduct her role effectively. She went into the fact that she has 24/7 access to the SIS and the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB). She and her team can look into any aspect of those organisations at any time whenever they want. Some of the most top-secret issues will need to be cleared with the director but otherwise they are free to do whatever they like. They will be up to speed and be able to do that by January next year. I have to say these were the changes that were made in the legislation last year and they were very positive changes. But I do not really think they have had the air time that they really deserve. I think that in many ways at the legislative level of the oversight of these intelligence committees—and I am not talking about the political level; there are massive problems there—we are very close to providing the degree of oversight that I think we need to have. I do believe that is very positive.It was interesting that the inspector-general herself in her submission talked about the role that her counterpart in Australia has in looking at the various avenues of intelligence that they are able to look at. Whereas we are confined to the SIS and the GCSB her counterpart can also look at the committee within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet as well as military intelligence. So it is a broader role. We might want to leave that for a review but again it is an issue that I think probably needs to be looked at in terms of the confines of that role and how that role takes place.Having said all that I think there was one area—notwithstanding the Minister’s explanation around terrorist freedom fighters etc. and making those sorts of distinctions—where I do not think we quite got to a conclusion to the satisfaction of this side of the Chamber. We let it go because I think the other issues were in many ways more important. That area was the issue of the extension of passports being withheld from 1 year out to 3 years. I think we were unconvinced by the rationale of needing to have to extend that out to 3 years.There was a lot of talk as we went into the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee about somebody being rendered stateless if they got their passport taken away from them. Clearly that is not the case. If you have your passport taken away from you you are still a New Zealand citizen. You are not stateless. Likewise if your passport is taken away from you when you are offshore you still remain a New Zealand citizen. Although you might not have a passport the Minister must according to the legislation provide an avenue—effectively a straight-line avenue—for you to return to New Zealand; otherwise that would be totally unfair.But the issue of the extension out to 3 years is something that I think we were as I say unconvinced about even after questioning both the director of the SIS and the officials from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. A passport can be withheld for 1 year. It can be done without having to provide explanation for up to 30 days. We accept that. Extensions of more than 1 year can be granted at the moment with a High Court judge providing that extension. The High Court judge obviously has to be convinced that there is still evidence that this person will go off and be a terrorist fighter or commit a terrorist act if they leave the country.The argument that was put to us was well sometimes these people do not necessarily show themselves. They might lie low and we might not have that evidential test. I think that is kind of going into grounds that I find are a bit dubious. Likewise the other explanation given was that taking a passport away from somebody for 3 years or 2 years or whatever is somehow less problematic than doing it year after year after year—taking it away then taking it away again; in effect extending it and extending it. Again I am not sure that I am particularly convinced by that and it did not sound particularly convincing coming from the people whom we asked. Added to that is the fact that this legislation has a life only until April 2017. It is conceivable that in March 2017 you could withhold somebody’s passport for 3 years from that date notwithstanding that the legislation might say something completely and utterly different. This is also a point that was brought up by the Law Society. We were not convinced that this was an area that we felt was particularly justified.On the other hand I will accept—and I think this is the reason why in the end we let it go through—that it is possible to make a submission to the Minister within 30 days. You can take it to judicial review and if it goes to any more than 1 year to possibly 3 years the Minister is bound to go back to that person who had their passport taken and invite them to make a submission in order to be able to have their passport back. Notwithstanding that I do think this is one area that we need to be taking a much better look at and certainly a much better look at when it comes to the broader review that is coming down the track. Thank you.