Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. I do want to begin by acknowledging in the context of this particular law change that we're a nation now who has in very real terms and very close memory experienced an act of terrorism that resulted in 51 deaths on New Zealand soil which was on March 15th in 2019.So in the past when we've taken the Acts on counter-terrorism through this House they've been as part of a remote movement in terms of the war on terror for example led by some of our ye olde allies and we've been followers. But now it is something that we need to take even more seriously in our own very real context. We've had a royal commission report even into not only our legal frameworks but also the ways that those frameworks interact with the institutions that we've entrusted with doing the work of counter-terrorism.The control orders regime it's also really important to notice is not a regime that applies to those who have been convicted necessarily of terrorism offending. It's a much broader regime and it implies a sort of ability on the part of our institutions to know ahead of time when someone might be a risk when certain types of publications may be a risk certain types of activity travel—funding actions even can be seen as being part of that person's risk in terms of terrorism. Whenever we deal with things as amorphous as that we have to take account of the inherent prejudices in our systems and in the operation of our institutions. I think now that we have a royal commission report more than ever we know those prejudices to be real.So in the past when we've been part of that remote war on terror we've gotten counter-terrorism law very wrong. We've detained an asylum seeker without charge or trial for two years and that was Ahmed Zaoui. Our courts had to tell us at every step that we need to have a mind to a human rights - based process and that we weren't in fact acting in terms of counter-terrorism if we were giving away powers giving away the rule of law and our own standards of human rights in order to look tough.So the Green Party did support this bill to the Justice Committee because we wanted to see how that work would go. But our hesitation in part which stands again and still is in the ad hoc approach in terms of bringing this law back to tweak it so to speak but in fact including much more than what would be just cursory tweaks without waiting for that broad systemic review that's in the works. So we already had hesitations because this was an ad hoc approach to a review of counter-terrorism law but we wanted to see what the select committee would do. We stand as we did at second reading unsatisfied that our concerns in terms of the rule of law and in terms of that rights-based approach and in terms of the safety mechanisms that we want to see in lawmaking even when it comes to counter-terrorism are there.The committee heard from the likes of Amnesty International that this law includes unacceptable application of retrospectivity. So again that's the rule of law being undermined—so sanctioning someone for an activity that at the time they did it was not unlawful. In a very real way because the control powers within this regime are pretty restrictive they go well beyond the Bail Act and the Bail Act's applying to people where there's been a crime actually alleged and this isn't about that in all cases. So that's pretty serious. And Amnesty International I should say also shared the Green Party's problem with this kind of ad hoc approach to bringing back bits of counter-terrorism law and changing that without waiting for the broader proper systemic review.We heard from the Law Commission that there'd been no Māori consultation which is also quite galling in the context of the way that we saw counter-terrorism law weaponised against Māori activists and what we saw in the royal commission report that said that our institutions at the time of the royal commission report—and we're yet to see any kind of meaningful reform since then—were focused on the wrong groups which included the Muslim community itself and Māori. So to say that there was no consultation with those groups and no Te Tiriti - based partner consultation is quite stunning at this point in our experience of what counter-terrorism law can miss what our institutions can miss and how much those powers can be misused not to keep us safe from terrorism. So that's pretty concerning.This bill doesn't represent a new way of doing things in terms of having a global systemic vision of what counter-terrorism in the modern world in Aotearoa's context should look like. It represents a repeat of what we've seen for decades which is just doing little bits here and there without proper consultation without taking account of current contexts without taking account of the ways that power is misused in this space against communities and groups who are not in fact the threats to our society and how to better balance those powers as against the right and in fact the very valid threat of modern terrorism. So unfortunately we can't commend it to the House.