PM will outline urgent legislation law change Monday to prevent NZers leaving the country to join terrorist groups like Islamic State. PLUS: Key plays down pending employment law changes.
Prime Minister John Key will outline an urgent legislation law change Monday to prevent New Zealanders leaving the country to join terrorist groups like Islamic State.
It would be “odd” for New Zealand not to join the fight against Islamic State (IS or ISIS), Mr Key told TV One’s Q+A programme.
The PM's move follows the arrest of 15 IS supporters in Australia last month, who were allegedly planning domestic beheadings, and the shooting of an 18-year-old suspect who was allegedly trying to be-head police officers. The 18-year-old had earlier had his passport cancelled on suspicion he wanted to leave Australia to join IS. Tony Abbott's government is moving to tighten anti-terror laws.
Mr Key says there are a wide range of options being considered and there are “definite risks’.
“So the first thing is to identify whether those risks are worth us doing something about," the PM said.
"And then I think the next point is just simply to say well if we don’t play our part in standing up to ISIS we could obviously choose to do that, but the really slightly odd thing about that would be pretty much everyone that we either align ourselves to look to or work alongside. Not just the United Kingdom and the US and Canada and Australia, but you know countries like Germany and France and Belgium, Netherlands. They are all involved, so it would be odd for New Zealand to do nothing.”
Mr Key also said he wants to make urgent changes to our laws to deal with foreign fighters – those who are already fighting with jihadists in Syria or Iraq, or those planning to. He’ll present a paper with options to Cabinet tomorrow but the changes need to happen quickly:
“Potentially we would have greater powers, and potentially even powers to look at arresting someone under the view that they would undertake what would then be deemed to be a criminal act. So that’s a very big step. I'm saying we will take that, but what I am saying is that we're going to ask Cabinet tomorrow to consider the paper, and then ultimately go and look at what are the areas where we think potential changes happen very rapidly.
“What the officials are saying to us is that the settings that we've currently got, particularly in relation to passports but also in a couple of other areas, potentially argue the case that the change should take place in a much quicker basis," Mr Key said.
The PM also addressed pending employment law changes, which he played down.
The changes, which will mean less flexibility around meal times and strike action will be a "tidy up" rather than "extreme or Draconian," Mr Key said.
What do you think? Does NZ needs an urgent law change to deal with foreign fighters? Click here to vote in our subscriber-only business pulse poll.
RAW DATA: Q+A transcript: Michael Parkin interviews Prime Minister John Key
MICHAEL Prime Minister thank you for joining us this morning. You’ve now had this top line advice from MFAT and what a military contribution from New Zealand may look like. Can you talk us through what the sort of options are there?
JOHN All I've had so far is sort of I guess a range of things to be considered, but no narrowing down of that or a recommendation, or series of recommendations about what might be appropriate. So there is more work to be done, and we need to engage I think with our partners and with others to consider if New Zealand was to make a contribution what would actually be useful, practical and work.
MICHAEL What do they sort of look like? Are all of them military efforts, are some of them funding efforts. Just give people an idea of what you're sort of talking about.
JOHN So there's a very large range, starting at one end humanitarian support. We're already doing that. And there's a lot of displaced people obviously in Syria, about 10 million, Iraq a big number as well, and growing. So humanitarian support. Diplomacy is obviously an area which can make a real difference, and we're quite light in that area in that particular region, so that’s a possibility. There's obviously military commitment, or support in that could everything from the form of people going in training right through to ultimately people that would be there right on the front line.
MICHAEL So that’s boots on the ground?
JOHN Yep. In theory, if you're asking the smorgasbord of options this is the range, and then probably the last bit is some sort of military support but not necessarily people on the ground. So it could be airlift capability, clearly not air strike capability because we don’t have that. But we have other support in logistics that might work.
MICHAEL And which of those do you think is the most likely? Is it the SAS that boots on the ground, that front line roll that you talk about?
JOHN I wouldn’t want to jump to that conclusion. I think we have to be very very careful and cautious about what we do. I think the real issue here and it's a legitimate question for New Zealanders to ask, is should New Zealand get involved? The first thing I'd say about that is there are definite risks there. I don’t want to overstate those risks but they are there. So the risks in terms of foreign fighters in New Zealand and they're either looking to leave or they return, and we're trying to get to a point where I can declassify that number to spell that out for people. The second risk is people that actually go in-country, so they could be our military people in Sinai as you know for a very long period of time, or they could be aid workers, or youngsters that decide they're going to travel through that region, that part of the world, to the Middle East, and then the third real risk group sits in – if you look at the number of foreign fighters, we estimate that to be about 3000. Of those 3000 foreign fighters a reasonably significant number come from Muslim countries in Asia, and they are places where New Zealanders travel to. So there are three I think clear risks. So the first thing is to identify whether those risks are worth us doing something about. And then I think the next point is just simply to say well if we don’t play our part in standing up to ISIS we could obviously choose to do that, but the really slightly odd thing about that would be pretty much everyone that we either align ourselves to look to or work alongside. Not just the United Kingdom and the US and Canada and Australia, but you know countries like Germany and France and Belgium, Netherlands. They are all involved, so it would be odd for New Zealand to do nothing.
MICHAEL In that sense though do we have an independent foreign policy if the reason for getting involved is because everybody else is doing it?
JOHN Yeah absolutely because by definition and independent foreign policy means that New Zealand makes this decision based on what we believe is in the best interests of New Zealanders. My main point about is, on the one hand I don’t think we should overstate the risk to New Zealanders because it's not as great as I would for instance say the risk is to Australia.
MICHAEL Would entering the conflict, would entering the fight create a greater risk for New Zealand in the sense that we would see acts of retaliation on these shores.
JOHN Well some people will make that case. The advice I've seen so far is that in a material way it doesn’t change that risk. But I think the second point is, and this is really the advice from the officials, is that if you don’t stand up to a known terrorist group that is dangerous and growing at a frightening rate, the reason that you don’t do that is because you feel intimidated by them. Then by definition they are starting to control your foreign policy, and in the end it's not your independent foreign policy decided by New Zealanders, it's saying that a terrorist group based in Syria and Iraq is going to call the independent foreign policy shots of New Zealand, and I don’t think that’s right.
MICHAEL We saw in the United Kingdom obviously you know they had an aid worker targeted in that video and that happened because of the actions David Cameron had carried out. So how can you say that the same thing is unlikely to happen here?
JOHN Well that is the claim made by ISIS, whether that claim is actually valid or not, is a very different issue. I mean that particular aid worker had been kidnapped for a long period of time, there'd been a long process of ransom, and as we know the Brits don't pay ransom. So there's a variety of different reasons why you know ISIS is undertaking the actions they're undertaking. But part of it is a very sophisticated propaganda campaign, and if you look at the growing number of New Zealanders who are interested in engaging, one of the ways that they're having their interests alerted if you like isn't just necessarily with what's happening locally. Because the vast overwhelming bulk of Muslim New Zealanders are great law abiding good honest people who are revolted by what they see ISIS doing. It's actually by the social media and the outreach and the propaganda campaign that ISIS is running, and they are a very sophisticated organisation.
MICHAEL In terms of getting a mandate from parliament to do this, you’ve said you want to make your decision in Cabinet and then take it to the floor so they can debate your decision.
JOHN Yes.
MICHAEL Should you not be getting the wider approval of the parliament and getting their assessment of what they think this country should do?
JOHN Well the first thing is it's totally legitimate that there is a debate and …
MICHAEL But a debate that matters.
JOHN Well I think all these debates matter, because ultimately what is going to happen irrelevant of whether there was a vote or not, political parties will make their own call and their own public statements about what they think is the right course of action.
MICHAEL And you're trying to pressure them into getting behind you through the debate?
JOHN I'm not trying to pressure them, but what I am quite prepared and willing to do is to share information with them. Now in the case of say Labour, we have had some very small or low level discussions with them at this point, but as the kind of Her Majesty's Opposition it would be our expectation to engage really fully with them. At the moment they're going through their own leadership campaign and the like, so it's who actually speaks for the Labour Party is a different issue, but it's not likely we wouldn’t be prepared to fully engage with them. New Zealand First is a party that might be particularly interested. I mean it's not that we wouldn’t engage for instance with the Greens, but in all reality the Greens are not going to be supportive of what's happening.
MICHAEL On the foreign fighters issue that you mentioned earlier there, you're taking some papers to Cabinet tomorrow, what are the options here what are you looking to change?
JOHN So first Cabinet tomorrow and I'm taking a paper that would look at setting out some terms of reference that would say should we make some short term, under urgency, changes to the way that we control the rights and authority in this particular area. So if you look at what's happening at the moment, and you look at say cancellation of passports. At the moment you can cancel those for 12 months. It's not a criminal act in New Zealand to currently go offshore and fight for a terrorist group. In a country like Australia it is. Now the view of the officials is that there could be some deficiency in the current settings we have. Now all of that legislation is going to be reviewed. It has to start by the 30th June 2015, as a result of some of the changes we made to the GCSB law, and the intelligence and a security committee law last year, but that will take a good year to work its way through. And what the officials are saying to us is that the settings that we've currently got, particularly in relation to passports but also in a couple of other areas, potentially argue the case that the change should take place in a much quicker basis. So we'll spell out those terms of reference tomorrow.
MICHAEL So you're going to law under urgency to cancel passports for people wanting to be foreign fighters.
JOHN At the moment we can cancel them for 12 months, not necessarily for longer. At the moment we have very little rights if someone says they want to get up and go and fight for a terrorist group. So in Australia for instance it is a criminal act if you're looking to go and fight for a known terrorist group. Now to give you an example, last week there was a New Zealander, a dual passport holder, Australian and New Zealand passport holder, who has been detained as a result of the Australian law. Now let's say for a moment hypothetically he went off to Syria and fought for ISIS and then returned, under Australian law it would be illegal, under New Zealand law it would not. So where is he likely to go? And the answer is he's far more likely to come to New Zealand than Australia. Then the question is what domestic threat does an individual like that potentially pose?
MICHAEL And so you'll have the power to arrest that person.
JOHN Potentially we would have greater powers, and potentially even powers to look at arresting someone under the view that they would undertake what would then be deemed to be a criminal act. So that’s a very big step. I'm saying we will take that, but what I am saying is that we're going to ask Cabinet tomorrow to consider the paper, and then ultimately go and look at what are the areas where we think potential changes happen very rapidly.
MICHAEL Well what about the idea just quickly that Australia's got that once you’ve cancelled a passport you could cancel the welfare payment associated with that, is that something New Zealand?
JOHN Well within the terms of reference tomorrow it allows the capacity for us to look at what our like-minded partners are doing.
MICHAEL But that idea of chopping off the welfare payments?
JOHN It's not one they’ve raised with me, but in theory there are all sorts of possibilities that we should consider. The real question is, can we just leave the current settings we've got in place for what would really be another year and a half, because the foreign fighters issue is growing quite rapidly. If you take a step back with ISIS the interesting thing is, two years ago they were not a very significant group, today they're very significant.
MICHAEL If we move on to some of the other priorities you’ve got for the term ahead. Employment Law Reform, obviously that fell over because of John Banks' resignation. Is that bill going to change in any way, or will you pass it as it was at that point?
JOHN I don’t think that bill will change dramatically. I haven't had a discussion with the Minister at this point yet, and he's obviously new, in terms of Michael Woodhouse, but in principle we don’t see that law as being particularly extreme or draconian.
MICHAEL But there is that argument that it is going to drive down conditions and drive down wages, because you can't take part in collective bargaining the same way you could and that’s right isn't it?
JOHN Well what it does do is it says at some point if you’ve gone through a genuine process under good faith and can't conclude an agreement then you’ve got another course of action. And the point there is…
MICHAEL It just lets them walk away doesn’t it?
JOHN Well at the moment there are still ways for employers to get around that, but it's a very convoluted process, and you would still have to go through a lot. It's a little bit like the argument that the unions put up which I think was very false advertising, that somehow the law is going to take away meal breaks. Well that’s not true. What it is going to do is…
MICHAEL But it's going to take away that power for them to strike as effectively as have in the past.
JOHN Well it's going to allow flexibility in terms of meal breaks. So I you take the person who might be the sole charge person that is at a remote air strip. You know they might be due to have their morning tea break at 10 o'clock and it might be the one time the flight arrives. Well I mean these things are a bit silly. In my view I think the law is a tidy up of some scenarios which need reform.
MICHAEL Does it lift wages? You’ve said we were going to get parity with Australia by 2025, does it put us on that track?
JOHN Well all these things help because flexible labour markets…
MICHAEL That employment law reform will lift wages in your view, will we see them rise as a result of it?
JOHN Well it's one factor of many factors that drive a growing economy, but what we do know is wages have been rising faster than inflation under a National led government, over the course of the last six years. We are making good progress, in fact in Australia we're seeing a little bit the opposite. We've been keeping inflation at lower levels than wage rises that have been occurring. So overall in real terms New Zealanders are going forward. Now flexibility in the labour markets is just one factor that assists that.
MICHAEL The RMA is the other big issue you’ve got standing out there. Will that materially change, or are you happy to pass that with just Acts vote?
JOHN Well again obviously I'd always like to pass things for the broader majority. That may change, got a new Minister, so Nick Smith might look at that, and in reality …
MICHAEL … Adams sort of overreached with that one?
JOHN No I wouldn’t say that. There's a legitimate view actually within that legislation. There's two schools of thought. One says that you need to merge sections 6 and 7 and include in there, essentially in that merged section, reference to infrastructure and to economic development. So it's our major planning legislation the RMA.
MICHAEL So what does Auckland look like under that legislation? What changes are people going to see when you do pass this?
JOHN Well a few things, I mean firstly at the moment, the special housing areas which has been dominant in Auckland occur under legislation that we pass that has a sunset clause so that would be embedded in the legislation is my guess. It's also true for industrial land. We might consider how that might happen. But the third thing I think is overall, I think you do actually have to have a balance here, where you clearly need to preserve and enhance your environment. At the same time we need economic growth for jobs and opportunities. So if you look at Wellington as a great example, you have the flyover turned down in Wellington, because essentially when the Commissioners went and looked at the RMA it had no reference in either section 6 or 7 to infrastructure, and so they said on the basis of landscapes, the flyover was turned down. Now that’s a valid argument in terms of enhancing landscapes, but it's also true that you need a solution to the traffic problems in Wellington, otherwise you'll get continued congestion and limited growth.
MICHAEL Just finally, David Parker as we mentioned there, he joins the Labour leadership contest this afternoon, is he Labour's best hope in your view, would he be an opponent to be feared?
JOHN Well we'll take any Leader of the Opposition when they finally deliver us one very seriously. If you don’t then do so at your peril I think as Prime Minister. But I think what's interesting with Labour is you're starting to see playing out publically what we knew was behind the scenes, there's lots of different factions. There's lots of people that want to be the Leader. You know it's going to be an interesting caucus vote because in reality so many people are going to be in the game, you know they’ll all be voting for themselves and not many people left to vote for someone who's going to be the Leader. And the real issue for Labour in my view is about not the Leader. They think it is about the Leader but it's actually not, it's about relevancy of the Labour Party to the voting public of New Zealand, and over the course I think of the last six years they’ve lost relevancy, and unless they can regain that then I'm not very hopeful for the Labour Party now in the position I sit in. I don’t want to be very hopeful for the Labour Party but that’s their challenge. Not who the front person is, it's what you stand for. And I think of course we live in a presidential type of election process, so a lot of emphasis is on me and the last election David Cunliffe. But actually the voters will show you if you go and analyse why they voted, the Leader is part of the issue, but in reality it's the things that you do, and that’s what they voted for, it was the issues that matter. Less about the individual than you might think.
MICHAEL That is where we'll leave it. Prime Minister John Key thank you very much.
