Sitting date: 22 Oct 2025

CRIMES (COUNTERING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 18 September.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to speak against the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill. While we do believe that it's important to ensure New Zealand is protected from genuine threats of foreign interference, we believe this legislation does not ensure sufficient protection for civil liberties and democratic freedoms. This was a sentiment that was echoed in the submission stage of the select committee process. The committee received 705 submissions, 49 of which were accompanied by oral submissions to the committee. Out of those 705 submissions, 620 submitters opposed the bill, 34 supported it, and the remaining 51 were either unclear or did not take a position on this bill. We share the concerns of the submitters that this legislation could be used against environmental advocates, trade unions, human rights groups, and indigenous peoples. The recommendations in the departmental report and from the select committee have not alleviated this.

We do believe that the legislation is written in such a vague way that it could encapsulate—for example, I've already wished members a happy Filipino Restaurant Week yesterday, and I did that just because I saw that it was Filipino Restaurant Week. But if the Filipino Embassy had contacted me and asked me to share posts related to Filipino Restaurant Week, under the really vaguely defined provisions of the legislation, my posting that and encouraging people to celebrate Filipino Restaurant Week could potentially constitute a crime, if you interpret that under this legislation. That's how loosely defined this legislation could be, and that's why we have serious concerns.

The Crown's record in this regard is not good. We only have to look at the Urewera raids and the history of espionage, in a domestic way, to see that. We consider that the new offences created represent State overreach and a significant threat to civil liberties, particularly the right to peacefully protest and organise, the right to privacy, and the right to voice one's own personal political opinions, or opinions about restaurants for that matter. References to a foreign power, and what it means to act for or on behalf of a foreign power, are too broad and have not addressed the concerns of many submitters. Intelligence agencies often highlight concerns about foreign influence from countries such as China and Russia, for example, but there's no clarity on how this bill will address, if at all, the influence of Five Eyes countries and the additional complexities of navigating those relationships.

I'll give you an example of that complexity: there's widespread public concern about the presence of a law enforcement FBI office being opened here in Wellington, particularly around the level of coordination and cooperation in law enforcement and policing matters, and the relationship between our security services. It took everyone by surprise, especially the trade Minister Todd McClay, because the very next day we got pinged with 50 percent tariffs. We actually felt a bit sorry for him. They let this lot set up shop, including an FBI headquarters right in our capital, and they said thank you with tariffs. We've had Ministers say that this wasn't about China, but then the person who came over to open the office, Kash Patel, reiterated that it actually is about countering China. This is not a simple administrative move, and it's not just an intelligence liaison; this is an expansion of a foreign surveillance power on to our soil under the banner of cooperation and security. Is that foreign interference? This legislation doesn't count it so, but apparently we can just invite them.

This appears to step over successive Governments' claims on independent foreign policy and continues with the trend that we've seen, under this Government, of being aligned to the United States rather than with other partners and our neighbours in the Pacific. We should not accept that our membership of the Five Eyes means we should be open to agencies from within that group. We are not another state in Donald Trump's United States. There's also insufficient clarity on how this would address foreign interference from powerful multinational corporations who might owe no allegiance to any foreign power. References to benefiting a foreign power are also too subjective and broad. The implications of this are numerous. I've already mentioned the right to peacefully protest could be threatened by accusations of being a protest movement in service of a foreign power. We are also concerned that consultation with Māori was inadequate, particularly given the submitters' concerns around the State's poor track record, and the rest of this legislation could unfairly target Māori, particularly for aspirations of tino rangatiratanga and mana motuhake. Thank you.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thanks for the opportunity to speak on this bill. There are three things I want to touch on in terms of amendments that came through the Justice Committee: replacing "enemy alien" with "citizen of a State at war with New Zealand", just to make that really clear what that reference related to; secondly, making it a question of law whether a person owes allegiance to New Zealand, so a judge will make that decision instead of a jury—that was a suggestion of the New Zealand Law Society—and, finally, a safeguard for protesters to ensure that engaging in protest, advocacy, or industrial action would not, by itself, be criminalised. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm very glad to be able to have a chance to contribute to this second reading debate on the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill.

I wanted to say a couple of things about why I think this bill is important and why it's worthy of serious debate in the House. The motivation here is to protect our democracy. And when we look around the world right now, democracy is under threat in so many places. It's under threat from right-wing populism. It's under threat from Governments who deliberately set out to undermine democratic institutions, to ignore the basic human rights standards that have been really the foundation of democratic systems for more than a century—I would note that both of these things are going on right now in the United States, a country that much of the world has looked to as a pinnacle of democracy for a long time—and the rise of unregulated, unchecked social media. For so many reasons, our democracies are under threat, and foreign interference, the deliberate covert interference, including in elections, is also a feature of the international landscape right now. The Russians have been identified often as one of the worst culprits in this respect. But they're not the only ones, and we have no reason to think that little old New Zealand at the bottom of the South Pacific is likely to be immune from these kinds of pressures.

I want to acknowledge the concerns that were raised by our Green Party colleagues. This is something that warrants careful and thoughtful balance here. Historically it's not very long since the anti-communist witch hunts of the 1950s. Think about the McCarthyite hounding of people in both in politics and the entertainment industry; in fact, all walks of life in the United States where anti-communism and geopolitics was used as a pretext to suppress absolutely legitimate political dissent in a liberal democracy. It's not very long since that happened.

Think of the Government of Sid Holland, the National Party Prime Minister from 1949 in New Zealand. We had plenty of our own echoes of exactly the same phenomenon when geopolitics and anti-communism were used to crack down on critics of the Government of the day. And I think about the Bill Sutch case and others. So we're not immune to all that. But by the same token, it's very clear, and our intelligence agencies have provided plenty of evidence, that there is foreign interference that is covert and deceptive activity taking place that, at least arguably, could undermine New Zealand score national interests. So I think we have to take that seriously.

I want to talk about the elephant in the room in this debate, and that is the quite well publicised activities of operatives from the Chinese Government who have been engaging in, I think, foreign interference, in the way that it is defined in this bill—their activities would qualify as foreign interference.

Now, I'm not an advocate for a kind of new Cold War mentality about the rise of China. In fact, I regard myself as a principled critic of this Government's headlong rush into the arms of the United Military Alliance, effectively with the United States, to counter China's growing strength in the Asia-Pacific region. In my view, and I think it's the view of my colleagues too, the relationship with China is one of our most important foreign policy relationships. We have an enormous amount at stake not just in economic terms and trade, but China is already a great power in our region, and we need to conduct our relationship with China in a way that's calm and thoughtful, and mature. There is far too much at stake to cast China as some kind of military villain in our region and a military threat to New Zealand; it's not. The biggest threat actually is what would be a catastrophic war between China and the US and Asia. And in our foreign policy, we need to be doing everything we can to avoid that. We need to be a voice for peace and negotiation and detente. So I'm not a new Cold War guy in terms of our relationship with China, but I do think that we need to be candid with our friends in China and in the Chinese Government and say publicly and openly that foreign interference activity in New Zealand is not acceptable.

As a local MP in West Auckland, I represent a substantial community of Chinese New Zealanders. They are New Zealanders, they live here, they have the right to stay here, they contribute to this country, they are making a new life, and their human rights are just as important as the human rights of any other person in this country. So when I see reported incidences of people in the community being intimidated, when there are threats that are alleged or implied against the family members back in China of people who might be considered to be dissenters or dissidents here, that is completely unacceptable. There is a word for it and it's "transnational repression". There are a number of countries around the world who engage in transnational repression, where they basically send their operatives to put pressure on people in the diaspora to try and keep them in line.

It's also, in my view, unacceptable that that the Chinese Government, through its United Front Works Department, deploys resources of the State to influence the behaviour and the publicly expressed opinions of the diaspora communities in New Zealand by controlling and influencing Chinese language media outlets who serve the diaspora communities in New Zealand. That is not OK, and when I read reports of the deliberate influencing and the distribution of funds through community-based associations and organisations who serve our Chinese diaspora communities in New Zealand in order to exercise influence in a covert way, I don't believe that that is acceptable.

So, as a member of this House, I want to say to the Chinese Government that New Zealand values the relationship with China. We are inextricably bound together. We share the Asia-Pacific region; our destinies are intertwined. We have a very important and growing Chinese diaspora community in New Zealand. It's been around for a long time, back to the 1800s, and today it is growing fast. These are New Zealanders who contributed enormously to our society, and we expect that their human rights and civil rights will be respected and that they will not be used in a way that's instrumental in what we regard, and certainly in the terms of the bill that we are debating in the House today, as foreign interference. I think that for those reasons this bill is very important. It's about a protection to our democracy. I've spoken about China as an example, but there are many other countries around the world, like Afghanistan, like Iran, and others who engage in transnational repression. It is not good enough and I think this bill actually is a good and useful move to address those issues.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It's great to speak on the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill, which we considered on the Justice Committee, and it was great to engage with that. Let's just be really clear about what the legislation is intending to do here: it's about strengthening the criminal law, and providing a means to better hold people accountable for undertaking foreign interference. That's ultimately what the legislation is all about. There are some foreign States that try to influence what people in other countries do, and this is simply providing a means to better hold people accountable for undertaking foreign interference. As such, I commend the bill to the House.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill. I'm not on the Justice Committee; however, I am a proud member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—probably the hardest-working committee, certainly from my perspective. That these matters go hand in hand is the point here. When we consider our relations in the foreign sphere—when we consider the way that we interact with other nations abroad, but also here domestically—these things must be considered hand in hand.

My colleague the Hon Phil Twyford gave, I thought, a very good speech about the fine balance being struck here: about trying to make sure that we can continue to protect our citizens here in New Zealand; to protect also the right, in a free democracy, for advocacy, to have the right for protest, but also to make sure that we continue to protect the sovereignty of New Zealand, the democracy we all enjoy, and also the rights of citizens here in New Zealand. I thought Mr Twyford made a very good contribution on this bill.

I think of the speeches in this House in light of the most recent threat assessment that has been completed by our agencies, as a background to some of my thinking with respect to this bill: how we must continue to act in our best interests, how we must continue to make sure that we look towards the geopolitical challenges that the world finds itself in today, and how ever-evolving that is, and how we must make sure that the legislation is fit for purpose today but also lends itself to an opportunity for the evolution of that legislation given the ever-evolving situation of foreign affairs matters around the world. It is a tricky time—it is a tricky time.

I think it's naive for many of our people out in New Zealand, who often sit in ignorance of many of the challenges that they face and of many of the challenges that this country faces—I think of some recent examples, whether it's what seems like a benign kind of cyber attack or phishing, if we will, or whether it's something far more sinister. We've seen occasions of that, where we know, on a regular basis, that our public institutions are constantly under attack in those spaces, all for access to data—to public and to private information.

When we look towards a piece of legislation or an apparatus that is designed to deter but also to define—and also, where appropriate, look towards an appropriate punishment for those that do enter into that particular space of what we're covering here, around terrorism and countering foreign interference—we've got to make sure that it is able to answer the questions that many have on instances that we are aware of and that we are clear on. Mr Twyford spoke to some of the well-documented and publicly known instances where there have been cases where it has been proven that there has been foreign interference, but also cases where it has been proven that it doesn't quite meet that threshold, or in fact that we might have had a rogue or a person acting on their own. There have been those instances, certainly in my time here in Parliament.

We're looking to support this bill and continue to remind the House, though, that, on a day when communities across the country are striking, we must continue to respect and also protect the ability for our people here in this country to peacefully protest, for advocacy, and for industrial action. It's rather fitting that we continue to speak and discuss this bill on a day when New Zealanders look towards taking to the streets to prove their point in the industrial action space, rallying against the moves by this Government with respect to their pay. Mr Speaker, we support this bill. Like I said, from my perspective on the committee that I myself and yourself sit on, we must think of it in its entirety, within its context in international affairs, and of course the security of our democracy here at home.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill. As my colleague—or my friend—the Hon Peeni Henare said, as a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, I have an interest in this.

Foreign interference from any country is simply unacceptable and it often disrupts the rights of New Zealanders, including their right to freedom of expression. So this legislation will help to ensure that our criminal law is fit for purpose to address what we see as a harmful activity and will better equip the relevant agencies to hold people to account. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. It was an interesting process at the Justice Committee to hear submissions and to understand the nature of some of the threats that this bill is designed to counter. In particular, the instances that were provided at select committee revolved around members of the New Zealand community who have Chinese connections and who have been in situations of protest against issues that are occurring in China. There were instances where there had been pressure put upon them not to be able to protest in New Zealand, to the point where sometimes there was a physical threat to prevent that protest from happening. We have a very strong view in Labour that irrespective of your country of origin, if you are a New Zealander you have every right and privilege of a New Zealander, and that includes the right to be able to protest about whatever you want to as a free citizen. We believe that's a fundamental part of our democracy, and we believe that no other nation State has the right to interfere in our democratic processes here in New Zealand.

The bill, essentially, seeks to deter, detect, and respond to covert actions by powers that threaten our sovereignty, our democracy, and the safety of those who call this country home. Let me be clear from the outset: Labour supports robust measures to protect New Zealand's democratic institutions from foreign interference. And in this day and age, that is more important than ever before. It's important that people can rely upon information and make up their own minds and be able to participate freely in a democracy. We live in a world where State sponsored disinformation, cyber-attacks, and coercive diplomacy have become tools of influence on the international stage. It is only right that our legal framework evolves to meet these modern challenges, and that is what this bill attempts to do.

It's important to note that this is qualified. We recognise the importance of acting decisively, but also the importance of acting wisely and being fully informed. When Governments expand the powers of the State, particularly in the realm of national security, they must also do so with precision, accountability, and transparency. Labour's position is that while the bill is a necessary step, it must be accompanied by strong safeguards, resourcing, and oversight to ensure that it protects our democracy not only from foreign interference but also from overreach at home.

But the main points I would like to make today are the importance of defending New Zealand sovereignty and democratic values, and also the importance of having a broader, more coherent national security strategy—one that earns, not assumes, public trust, and that is so important. At its core, this bill is about protecting our independence of decision making, the ability of our people and institutions here in New Zealand to shape our future without external manipulation. That is so important.

Foreign interference can take place in many shapes, and sometimes we're not even aware of that. It can involve covert funding of political activities, attempts to intimidate members of ethnic communities, and cyber-attacks designed to steal sensitive data or disrupt Government operations. We've seen examples of this behaviour internationally, and we would be naive to assume Aotearoa is not immune to this.

The National Security Strategy, released in 2023, was right to identify foreign interference as a key and growing threat. However, that recognition must now be backed by substance and capability. The gaps that this bill seeks to close are real, but also too are the risks with acting without balance. We cannot defend democracy by weakening the very principles that underpin it. Laws designed to target foreign interference must be precisely defined and proportionately applied, ensuring they do not have a chilling effect on the legitimate political activity, advocacy, or even dissent, especially amongst diaspora communities who already face pressure from authoritarian regimes abroad. Labour will therefore continue to seek assurances that these laws will not be misused to target individuals exercising their democratic rights, to silence critics under the guise of security, and make sure New Zealand is protecting its democracy and protecting its freedom of expression as much as it means countering covert influence.

This bill has some big changes, and I'd just like to outline what some of those changes are. Targeting foreign interference offences: this bill has the introduction of a foreign interference offence. It squarely criminalises covert, deceptive, corruptive, or coercive activity undertaken on behalf of a foreign power to harm New Zealand's core interests, including national security, elections, and human rights. This provides a clearer pathway for authorities to prosecute those who intentionally or recklessly act against our democratic integrity, and it is a necessary change. However, we also urge the Government to ensure that clear prosecution thresholds and judicial oversight accompany these powers. Vague or overly broad definitions risk unintended consequences, and the line between influence and interference is not always clear, and the law must be careful not to blur that.

This bill also clarifies allegiance and espionage liability. It's a clarification of when a person owes allegiance to the Sovereign in right of New Zealand. It may seem technical, but it is an important fix. This provides greater certainty for charging individuals for serious crimes such as espionage offences, which go to the very heart of the loyalty of the State. Labour remains concerned about how this principle is applied to dual citizens or long-term residents, and whether the Government needs to make sure it fully considers its diplomatic implications in this space.

In terms of protecting Government information, we support the expansion of those offences that are related to unauthorised disclosure of Government information, including explicit coverage of military tactics and sensitive data held by a wider range of public bodies.

Good national security law is precise, not broad; is balanced, not blunt. This legislation alone will not keep New Zealand safe. Foreign interference is not only a criminal problem; it is a societal challenge that demands our awareness, our resilience, and coordination across all levels of Government and community. This bill must sit within a broader strategy—one that equips New Zealand's public sector, local Government, academic institutions, businesses, and communities with the knowledge and tools that they require to identify and resist foreign interference.

Under the previous Labour Government, we took steps to modernise our national security approach and strengthen agency cooperation, but that work must continue. We want to continue to see this Government have a clear plan to resource and implement these capabilities effectively. Passing a law is one thing, but ensuring it works in practice is another. We must also make sure our communities are aware that we are resourcing these aspects, as that is also incredibly important. We must be transparent with the public about the nature of the threat that we face. If the Government wants communities to be resilient, then communities must be trusted as partners in this conversation, not passive recipients of State protection.

Finally, we must ensure that in countering external coercion, we do not become coercive ourselves. National security should never be an excuse for secrecy that excludes scrutiny. Oversight mechanisms are essential to maintaining that level of public trust.

New Zealand's democracy is one of our greatest assets, built on transparency, fairness, and freedom. Those values are what foreign interference seeks to erode, and those values must also guide how we respond. Labour supports the intent of this bill because we believe our country must be equipped to defend itself from covert manipulation. But we will continue to push for stronger safeguards, resourcing, and oversight to ensure the defence of democracy never comes at the cost of democracy itself. Protecting New Zealand's sovereignty is not the task of one party or one Government; it is a shared responsibility. In that spirit, we support the bill moving forward, while holding the Government to account for how it is implemented. I commend this bill to the House.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker, I'm grateful to be able to rise in the second reading of this bill, the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill. I'm appreciative of the of the 49 oral submitters and 705 submitters, in general, that expressed their concerns. Some of those concerns were listened to—well, they were all listened to—but there were some amendments that were made as a result.

I'm grateful for them expressing their concerns and I'm grateful that we're going forward with this bill. I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the amendments recommended by the Justice Committee by a majority be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 15

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Amendments agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Home Page | Parliament | Previous Story | Next Story

Copyright (c) Scoop Media