Andrew Little’s terrorism suppression bill is facing two very different forms of resistance, from National and from the Greens. What is the legislation, and why is it controversial?

What this then? 

The Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill, introduced to parliament by the justice minister, Andrew Little, last Wednesday, seeks to introduce “a civil regime of control orders to manage and monitor a small number of people who are returning to, or who have arrived in, New Zealand after having engaged in terrorism-related activities overseas”.

That control order regime is intended to “target individuals who pose a risk of engaging in further terrorism-related activities and for whom a criminal prosecution for their past terrorism-related activities overseas is not viable because of the significant difficulties associated with securing evidence from overseas jurisdictions.”

Police would be empowered to monitor those considered “high risk” for terrorism after being involved in overseas terrorist activity. The level of these control orders would vary case-by-case, and would be imposed by the High Court. They could include detainment, electronic monitoring, police check-ups and impose restrictions like who they’re able to contact and their internet access.

Why now? 

The Bill was developed in response to the situation in Syria. With the withdrawal of US troops from northern Syria increasing tensions and Turkish forces moving in, there is an increased likelihood that ISIS fighters will return to their home countries.

Are there many Kiwi ISIS members?

Infamous Hamilton man-turned ISIS member the so-called “bumbling Jihadi” Mark Taylor has been trying to head home for a while now after surrendering to Kurdish forces in March. He’s still a citizen here, but the Labour-led government has said they have no plans to assist him in getting to New Zealand.

So this bill would definitely cover him.

Maybe not. Taylor insists he was merely an ISIS guard and hasn’t committed any atrocities, which could prove tricky.

Law professor Andrew Geddis told TVNZ that under current counter-terrorism laws, Taylor might be able to walk free. 

“What we know publicly of Mr Taylor is that he didn’t commit any actual terrorist offences. He looks like he was just kind of a guard around fuel dumps and so on, and so whether any provisions of the Terrorism Suppression Act will actually catch him is just questionable,” Geddis said. 

Is it proportionate?

Of course it is – according to Andrew Little.

“The Bill is a proportionate response to managing risk, and is designed to prevent terrorism and support de-radicalisation in a way that is consistent with New Zealand’s human rights laws,” he said.

“The more serious the risk, the more restrictive the conditions are likely to be.”

But not according to others?

The bill has attracted criticism from human rights group Amnesty International and the Green Party for what they believe to be breaches of human rights.

Green MP Golriz Ghahraman said the bill amounted to “dog-whistling”. She is concerned that it draws on other nations’ characterisations of terrorism, and so “expands New Zealand’s definition of terror to include convictions anywhere in the world or deportation for terror anywhere in the world.” 

She told Newshub Nation that this has the potential to include people who’ve been deported or convicted in places where feminism or environmental activism are considered terrorism.

Amnesty International’s Advocacy and Policy Manager Annaliese Johnston said the definitions of terrorism are too varied worldwide. “We often see the word ‘terrorism’ being applied broadly by oppressive regimes to detain innocent people who’re simply rallying for a better life.”

Is the Green Party’s support needed?

Yes. Unless the National Party backs it.

They’re a tough-on-crime party, so surely they back it?

Not exactly. National supported the bill at its first reading, but seeks several changes to the legislation. They want tougher penalties including an increase on the term of imprisonment to five years, increasing the duration of the control orders to more than two years, and lower the age limit for control orders to 14 years and older. 

Simon Bridges said there was evidence that young people had been radicalised in Australia, and the bill needed to take this into account, or it wouldn’t get National party backing.

What did Little say to that?

He said it was “a bit silly”.

How did National respond?

Rejecting their proposed changes without even a meeting was “arrogant and could put lives at risk”, said Bridges.

What next?

Labour will need to get either National or the Greens onside to get the bill through a second reading, so concessions will be required one way or another. A meeting with Bridges seems likely this week.

The troubled Auckland Light Rail project is back in the news again, and not for good reasons. So what does it all mean for transport and traffic congestion in New Zealand’s biggest city?

What’s all this then?

It seemed like such a good plan at the time. Over the course of 10 years between 2018 and 2028, NZTA committed to building two major light rail projects as part of the Auckland Transport Alignment Project. One of them would go from the city centre to Māngere, and the other would extend that out to Auckland’s northwest. It was a major promise of the incoming Labour government, and represented the biggest transport project in New Zealand’s history. Auckland’s traffic congestion is already bad by international standards, and the project promised the chance to take a huge number of cars off clogged roads. And now, it’s looking more and more like the wheels are falling off.

What are the problems? 

Huge delays have already been locked in, construction work won’t begin until at least 2021, and the money that had been earmarked towards it is starting to flow elsewhere. NZTA recently announced that a massive pile of funding for the next several years would be reallocated towards other projects, and as it happens, they might not even be the organisation picked to deliver light rail in Auckland.

Who else is in the running?

There’s a rival bid in the works being led by the NZ Super Fund, who are partnering with CDPQ Infra from Canada under the banner of NZ Infra. Reporting from Stuff’s Thomas Coughlan shows there has been plenty of well-justified scepticism about this bid being undercooked and underdeveloped. A decision on who will actually get the contract is still months away, meaning even more precious time will be lost. On the Greater Auckland blog, transport expert Matt Lowrie wrote that “no matter who takes the project forward, we will have lost at least two and a half years in terms of delivery timeframes from what would have been possible if NZTA had simply picked up the design that Auckland Transport had been working on since around 2014/15 and taken it forward.”

If the Super Fund bid wasn’t flash, why give it so much consideration? 

The Super Fund basically exists to pay for the future costs of a universal pension. It started as a large pile of money, which was then used for investments so that it would grow into an absolutely massive pile of money. But under the current timeline for the Super Fund, money won’t be taken out of it for at least another decade, which means that it’s a really politically tempting source of funding for big infrastructure projects – for example, $6 billion worth of light rail. At the time, transport minister Phil Twyford welcomed the unsolicited bid.e

Is this politically damaging?

Hugely. The unsolicited Super Fund bid came in May last year, and at the time work on the light rail project could have started fairly quickly. But the delay has come at a serious cost for the government’s overall plan to sort out Auckland’s transport woes. It is basically the government’s transport equivalent of Kiwibuild for the Auckland housing market – another huge transformational idea overseen by Phil Twyford that hasn’t survived intact from contact with reality.

Light rail was a key plank in Phil Goff’s pitch for the Auckland mayoralty in 2016. It was part of the confidence and supply agreement between Labour and the Greens, and were anything happening on it, it would have been a centrepiece of the pitch both parties could make to Auckland voters in 2020.

Now they’ll have to explain instead why it hasn’t started, and doesn’t look at all close to starting either. And NZ First’s Shane Jones is speculating on whether a future National-NZ First government would axe it altogether, and National leader Simon Bridges isn’t a fan of it either. Crucially, it becomes a lot easier to throw it all out completely if no physical construction has actually got underway, as a different government would be able to argue that the sunk costs weren’t sufficient to bother going on with it.

So what happens now?

Like a bus in the bad old days of Auckland public transport, commuters will be left to wait and wait for a long time to come.