Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
New Zealand Human Rights Commission Submissions |
Last Updated: 28 June 2015
COUNTERING TERRORIST FIGHTERS LEGISLATION BILL
Human Rights Commission Submission to the Foreign Affairs, Defence
and Trade Committee
27 November 2014
1. Introduction
1.1 The Human Rights Commission (the Commission) appreciates the
opportunity to make this submission on the Countering Terrorist
Fighters
Legislation Bill. The Commission has earlier prepared a briefing document on the
wider issues. This is available on our
website and has been shared with
political party leaders. We have attached a copy of that document. We have also
attached a copy
of United Nations General Assembly (Third Committee) Resolution
A/C.3/69/l.26 which was passed yesterday and highlighted some relevant
parts of
that resolution.
1.2 The Bill is designed to ensure that New Zealand is able to address
the evolving threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters.
The Commission notes
that currently there is no intention to amend the provisions of the existing
criminal law. There may be need
to be more explicit legislation in the future to
deal with the threat presented by foreign terrorist fighters.
1.3 The Commission considers that what is proposed is in many ways a
balanced and careful approach to complying with the obligations
in UN Security
Council Resolution 2178. That said there are a number of important changes that
could be made.
1.4 The Commission would like to emphasise the following points, which
are discussed further later in this submission:
1.4.1 The Commission emphasises the importance of developing
relationships with affected communities and fostering social
solutions to the
broader issues of terrorism and extremism. The Commission urges the Committee to
recognise that the solution to
these problems does not lie solely in legislation
and law reform.
1.4.2 The Commission is concerned about the urgency with which the
legislation is being progressed. Given the potentially
significant human rights
implications it is essential that an appropriate opportunity is
provided for genuine public
involvement and input. We do acknowledge
though that care has been taken to ensure this is limited interim legislation
and that
there has been careful consideration of the human rights issues
involved in the preparation of the Bill.
1.4.3 The Commission makes specific recommendations intended to make aspects of the Bill relating to video surveillance, cancellation of passports and appeal rights more compliant with New Zealand’s human rights obligations.
1.4.4 The Commission has had an opportunity to review the submission of the New Zealand Law Society since it was made and the Commission concurs with the suggested amendments suggested by the New Zealand Law Society in its submission.
2.1 The introduction to the Security Council Resolution recognises
that, while legislation to stem the spread of terrorism is
necessary in the
short term, the real answer lies in a comprehensive approach to addressing the
marginalisation that attracts individuals
to radicalisation. This involves
working with communities to develop ways of counteracting issues likely
to predispose
some people to adopt extremist positions.
2.2 In Pillar 1 of the United Nations Global Counter Terrorism Strategy
(UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/60/288) the UN
General Assembly (including
New Zealand) makes clear what is required. It stresses the critical importance
of actions “to
promote a culture of peace, justice and human development,
ethnic, national and religious tolerance, and respect for all religions,
religious values, beliefs or cultures by establishing and encouraging, as
appropriate education and public awareness programmes involving
all sectors of
society” and actions “to pursue and reinforce development and
social inclusion agendas at every level
as goals in themselves, recognising that
success in this area, especially in youth unemployment, could reduce
marginalisation and
the subsequent sense of victimisation that propel extremism
and the recruitment of terrorists.”
2.3 The Global Counterterrorism Forum, a new multilateral counterterrorism body with 30 founding members (including New Zealand), issued a memorandum earlier this year on Good Practices for a More Effective Response to the FTF Phenomenon1, which identified the first step for dealing with violent extremists as “investment in the long term cultivation of trusted
relationships with communities susceptible to recruitment, taking into
account the broader set of issues and concerns affecting those
communities”.
2.4 The Commission has worked for over a decade with the Police, other
national and local government agencies and civil
society organisations to
promote harmonious relations between the increasingly diverse peoples of New
Zealand. We cannot be
complacent about social cohesion and peace in New
Zealand. We have done this most recently and raised our concerns in the context
of attacks on Jewish and Muslim New Zealanders in New Zealand this year.
3. Visual surveillance on private property
3.1 The Bill will allow the NZSIS to carry out visual surveillance with
a warrant. It will also allow surveillance without a
warrant in situations of
emergency and urgency for 48 hours subject to certain safeguards.
3.2 The Commission recognises that the search and surveillance measures will be achieved by amending the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act 1969 (NZSIS) which stipulates that functions performed under that Act must be carried out in accordance with “all human rights standards recognised by New Zealand law” unless they are specifically modified by another enactment. However, we note the right to privacy in the ICCPR is not recognised in
New Zealand law. It is not incorporated in NZBORA. The Commission has
made clear that
2 Article 17
the right to privacy of New Zealanders will only be properly protected when
it is. This is a matter that could be considered in the
upcoming review.
3.3 The right to freedom of expression and privacy and the right to life and security are the most obvious human rights engaged in the context of communication surveillance2. In June this year the Human Rights Council issued a report on the right to privacy in the digital age which refer to the need for vigilance to ensure the compliance of any surveillance policy or practice with human rights law 3 . Yesterday the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution which New Zealand supported. It reaffirmed “the human right to privacy, according to which no one shall be subjected to unlawful interference with his or
her privacy, family, home or correspondence, and the right to protection of
the law against such interference” and recognised
“that the exercise
of the right to privacy is important for the realisation of the right to freedom
of expression and to hold
opinions without interference and the right to freedom
of peaceful assembly and association and is one of the foundations of a
democratic
society”. The Commission commends New Zealand’s support
of the resolution. We believe it properly characterises the
importance of the
fundamental freedoms and rights at issue here. They are foundations of our
democracy.
3.4 In 2013 the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, submitted a report to the Human Rights Council on the implications of States’ surveillance of communications and the exercise of the human rights to privacy and
freedom of opinion and expression4. While conceding that “concerns about national security
and criminal activity may justify the exceptional use of communications
surveillance technologies”5 he noted that communications
surveillance should be regarded as a highly intrusive act that potentially
interferes with the rights
to freedom of expression and privacy and threatens
the foundations of a democratic society6.
3.5 If Pillar 1 of the United Nations Global Counter Terrorism
Strategy measures fail, the Commission accepts that
some form of
surveillance will at times be necessary. The Bill provides for significant
oversight and safeguards in cases where
a warrant is necessary. However, we note
and endorse the New Zealand Law Society’s submission on clause 9 of the
Bill on
ways in which these safeguards could be further strengthened such
as through enhanced oversight of the issuance and execution
of visual
surveillance search warrants. The situation relating to warrantless visual
surveillance is more concerning. The
Attorney- General’s report notes
that there is a consistent body of case law which suggests that use of a
warrantless power
may not be lawful notwithstanding that the conditions for its
exercise are satisfied, where it would have been reasonably possible
to obtain a
warrant.
3.6 The Commission finds it difficult to conceive of a situation where the need for surveillance is so immediate that a warrant cannot be obtained. A person does not become radicalised overnight and it takes time to make travel arrangements to leave the country. There should be sufficient time to invoke the process for obtaining a warrant. In our view, therefore, the warrantless search power may amount to unreasonable search and seizure. The Committee should seek to understand exactly why any warrantless surveillance is justified. In the Departmental Disclosure Statement (page 5) it is stated that “a number of hours can pass before a warrant may be issued.” As 48 hours is two days the Committee needs to consider
whether this length of time is justified.
2 Article 17
3 The right to privacy in the digital age: Report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
A/HRC/27/37 (2014)
4 A/HRC/23/40
5 At [para 3]
6 At [para 81
4. Amendments to the Passports Act
4.1 The Bill will amend the Passports Act by introducing several new
provisions which would allow the Minister to refuse to
issue a passport on the
grounds of national security if he or she believes on reasonable grounds that
the person is a danger to the
security of a country other than New Zealand and
the danger they present to that other country cannot be averted by any other
means.
Basically the Bill will extend provisions that currently apply only to
New Zealand, to other countries.
4.2 The right to a passport and to decide one’s destination is fundamental to the right to leav e a country and is required by Art.2(2) ICCPR. The UN General Comment on Freedom of Movement7recognises that the ICCPR authorises a State to restrict the right in exceptional circumstances to protect national security, public order, public health or morals and the rights
and freedoms of others.
4.3 To comply with the international standards, any restrictions must be provided by law, necessary in a democratic society and consistent with other rights in the Covenant. Where a measure derogates from a right in the ICCPR, it must only be for a limited time and for the duration of the emergency8. The Commission recognises that the ability to refuse to issue a
passport may be necessary to protect national security and that the Bill is
intended to do this in a way which infringes the right
as little as
possible.
4.4 Preventing people leaving New Zealand impacts on s.18(3) New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) and the right to freedom of movement. While denial or cancellation of a passport is an aspect of the Bill that clearly infringes this right, the Commission considers that what is proposed is a reasonable limitation in terms of s.5 BORA and the test imposed in Hansen v
R.9
5. Statelessness
5.1 Cancelling, or not issuing, passports for reasons of national security (including when the subject is not in the country) has been described as rendering a person stateless. This is not the case10. A person whose passport has been taken is not rendered stateless but rather they will be unable to travel for up to as much as 36 months (plus a further 12 months if a High
Court Judge allows it).
5.2 Preventing someone from leaving the country is comparatively
straightforward. It is less clear how the situation of people
whose passports
have been cancelled while they are out of the country will be addressed,
particularly if they have a change of heart
and wish to return to New Zealand.
The Commission assumes that people in this position could get emergency travel
documents and help
to reintegrate into New Zealand society while those who
return unrepentant might face charges under the criminal law or terrorism
legislation. Whatever the situation, it cannot be correct that New Zealand
citizens will be prevented from returning permanently.
5.3 Many countries use risk based interdiction and diversion to
deal with returning terrorist fighters11 . Such measures are often
based on risk assessments developed following the
7 General Comment No.27: Freedom of Movement(Art.12):02/11/1999 CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9
8 General Comment 29 of the Human Rights Committee on States of Emergency
9 [2007] NZSC 7 [123]
10 There are no changes proposed to the Citizenship Act (although at present that Act does allow the Minister to deprive a person of their citizenship if they have acquired the nationality or citizenship of another country or acted
in that capacity in manner that is contrary to the interests of New Zealand).
11 See for example, Centre for Security Studies, Foreign Fighters: An Overview of Responses in Eleven
Countries (2014) available at www.ccs.ethz.ch
person’s return which allow authorities to ascertain the level of risk
that the person presents. In order to decide the appropriate
intervention,
governments need to be able to identify susceptible individuals when they return
to their home country.
5.4 The good practice guidelines referred to earlier state that as wide as possible a range of information sources should be used to anticipate and detect returnees in order to develop programmes to help them reintegrate into society12. The amendment to the Customs and Excise Act 1996 which would allow the NZSIS and the Police to access information held by
customs for counter-terrorism purposes is consistent with this.
6. Appeal rights
6.1 The report of the Special Rapporteur on countering
terrorism13notes that a best practice in countering terrorism is
ensuring that a person whose rights have been violated in the exercise of
counter
terrorism powers or the application of counter terrorism law should have
access to an effective and enforceable remedy. The BORA
also provides in s.27(1)
that a person whose rights are affected by a decision of a public authority has
the right to the observance
of the principles of natural justice. Again the
section 5 test is relevant.
6.2 The Bill presents a number of problems in relation to s.27:
i. There is provision in the Bill for appealing a decision to issue
(or not issue) a passport in the Passports Act. The appeals
provisions are set
out in ss.28 and 29 of the principal Act but an appeal must be lodged within 28
days. This could create problems
for potential appellants as an appeal could be
difficult to activate in the permissible time frame if the person is out of the
country
and unable to return.
ii. The SIS will also be able to strip a person of their travel
documents for up to 10 days even if there is no conclusive
evidence that they
are a terrorist risk. If there is no evidence that a person meets the necessary
criteria then the suspension will
lapse but the Crown is not liable for any
resulting loss or damage unless the actions are grossly negligent or shown to be
in bad
faith. This is a very high threshold to overcome.
iii. There could also be a problem if classified information
is withheld to maintain confidentiality because of
obligations undertaken in
relation to the information provided. This can make it difficult to challenge.
The Commission has said
in the past that this is inconsistent with the right to
justice.
6.3 The Attorney-General’s section 7 vet recognises that the
right to natural justice is inherently flexible and context-specific
and that,
for a variety of reasons, any limits that the Bill places on the right can be
justified in terms of s.5.
6.4 In relation to appealing a decision to withdraw a person’s
passport, the possibility of issuing emergency travel documents
if the subject
wishes to return to New Zealand is arguably part of the solution. We also
recognise that the Courts have developed
remedies for breaches of BORA rights
(which could deal with the matter of limiting liability of the Crown for
stripping a person
of their travel documents).
12 Op cit. fn.1
13 Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin A/HRC/16/51 (2010)
6.5 The issue of withholding classified information is more concerning
since a decision on appeal or review could take place
in the absence of any
supporting evidence. We suggest that consideration is given to establishing
some form of independent review
to address this concern.
7. Urgency and Sunset Clause
7.1 Despite the interim nature of the Bill the Commission is concerned
about the urgency with which it is being moved through
the legislative process.
For legislation such as this to be acceptable, the public needs an adequate
amount of time to develop a
response. Measures introduced in haste or in
response to a specific situation can be unduly intrusive and careful
consideration needs
to be given to any changes to ensure that resulting laws or
regulations are consistent with international human rights standards.
7.2 The Commission is concerned that insufficient time has been given to properly estimating the benefits and costs of its introduction – the fact that the legislation is “time limited” is not a sufficient answer to this 14 . The legislation will last until 2018. Three years is a not inconsiderable period of time when there is the possibility of abrogating human rights. This
period should be set to the absolute minimum to enable the upcoming review to
take place and new legislation to be in place. A shorter
operative time period
for the interim legislation should be considered by the Committee. The sunset
clause should allow for sufficient
time for a considered review allowing for
civil society engagement while providing an incentive for the Government to
draft any necessary
legislation.
8. Conclusion
8.1 The Commission recognises the importance of this legislation and
the contribution New Zealand can make to the fight against
terrorism. There are
a number of areas where there could be improvements including the ability to
carry out warrantless searches,
the appeal procedures and the decision to
withhold classified information in some cases.
8.2 We strongly recommend that there is engagement with affected
communities and civil society to reinforce government measures.
Any legislation
is inevitably a short term answer. In the long term the answer to dealing with
the issue of foreign terrorist fighters
lies with the communities themselves.
Involving peace loving New Zealanders in designing and implementing solutions
to minimise
extremism in their communities and in reintegrating people
who may have held extreme views is critical.
8.3 We repeat that legislation such as this is more likely to be
acceptable to the public if people have had an opportunity
to consider and
provide comment. A truncated Select Committee process and the use of urgency
does not achieve this.
Contact persons:
Sylvia Bell, Principal Legal & Policy Analyst, Human Rights Commission
Direct dial: 09 306 2650
Email: sylviab@hrc.co.nz
Janet Anderson-Bidois, Manager, Legal Research and Monitoring, Human Rights Commission
Direct dial: 09 306 2663
Email: janetab@hrc.co.nz
14 Departmental Disclosure Statement,13 November 2014 at 2.5
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/NZHRCSub/2014/11.html