Seymour David; Little AndrewDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I wish to join with other leaders on behalf of ACT in expressing sincere condolences for those victims in the terror attack at LynnMall Countdown last Friday. I want to further extend those condolences to their families and all those people going about their shopping who have been terrorised. Sadly the purpose of terror is precisely to make people afraid to go about their daily business. I want to add our admiration for those members of the New Zealand Police who fastidiously tracked this dangerous terrorist 24/7 for several weeks and were on hand having carried out surveillance from the distance they were able and certainly or almost certainly ensured that a much worse tragedy did not take place by neutralising the terrorist. I want to extend that admiration to the bystanders shopping and the Countdown stores who did the Kiwi thing and showed no hesitation in going and rushing to the aid of those victims. That is one of the examples that brings out the best in us. I want to join with our Prime Minister in her statement that no group of people are responsible for the actions of an individual. It is wrong and inhumane to treat somebody based on their membership of a group before we recognise their inherent humanity their inherent rights and freedoms and the fact that we are all bound together by common humanity. It would be completely wrong to foment further hatred and resentment by having a group of people judged for the actions of an individual because with freedom comes responsibility and only that individual is responsible for their actions. In that vein ACT stands and offers our support to the Sri Lankan and Muslim communities of New Zealand who some people have sadly chosen to typecast as being somehow bearing group responsibility for the actions of an individual. That is completely wrong. On the evidence on philosophy on just about any basis you care to name it is wrong to have that judgment. These are values that we need to celebrate especially at a time like this. Our little country has been under attack by somebody with a philosophy that is completely opposed to everything that New Zealand stands for and I'd add that it is very important that when our country is under attack when it is terrorised the last thing we should do is abandon the very values that make this country great—in particular our system of deliberative consultative parliamentary democracy. We should be learning from our history. Last time there was a terror attack in this country we rushed laws through this Parliament with undue haste and as ACT predicted at the time they've been completely ineffective. In fact today gun violence in New Zealand is so bad that for the first time in our history the majority of police officers have said they want to carry them too. We should not make the mistake of trying to fix rushed and bad laws with more rushed and bad lawmaking and ACT opposes the initiatives some parties have put forward. Ironically in a rare case of unity with the Green Party we oppose rushing these laws through. If anything the rushing should have been done earlier. It shouldn't be done for the purposes of political theatrics now the person who was the prime threat has been removed. I have a few questions to start what will no doubt be a lengthy debate about the fitness for purpose of our laws and the actions that our Government took. I want to ask because I didn't feel we got a clear answer—yes or no—from the Minister in response to Judith Collins' questions: did any Minister certify the terrorist was a threat or risk to security under section 163(1) of the Immigration Act and if not why not?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister responsible for the NZSIS): I can't confirm whether or not that had happened. But what I can be clear about is that the agencies who were involved in assessing this individual and keeping tabs on him both when he was in prison and outside of it were very clear that he met the definition of a terrorist in terms of our terrorism suppression legislation.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Sections 163 and 164 refer to prohibitions on deporting people on the basis of being either a refugee or a protected person. Was it for either of those reasons that the Government did not define the person as a threat to national security under section 163?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister responsible for the NZSIS): As I thought I'd indicated the person was the subject of a deportation order that he had then sought to appeal and under our law you cannot deport while a deportation is under appeal. On top of that advice was received that because of his status and the grounds for achieving that status he was more likely than not a protected person and that bore upon any decision about carrying out any deportation.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): How is it possible that the person could be a protected person when they no longer believed he qualified for refugee status?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister responsible for the NZSIS): Well this goes to a question of the rule of law. So we have a judicial and quasi-judicial system that makes determinations about individual cases and individual people. He having been served a deportation notice was entitled to appeal it and he did. That appeal had not been disposed of and under those circumstances it was not possible to deport him.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): So let's get this straight. The Government was waiting for the person's appeal to keep his refugee status to pass before they could act however while believing they might succeed at stripping him of refugee status—because the Government was taking an action to do that—they also believed that he would qualify as a protected person. How is it possible to be a protected person when the bases for being a refugee the Government clearly believed were fake? Otherwise it wouldn't have removed his refugee status and he'd have nothing to appeal.Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister responsible for the NZSIS): In the end it wasn't about the Government's decision. This was a judicial process that was in train and Ministers members of the executive and Government agencies do not get to determine the outcome of that. The individual had exercised his right to appeal his deportation order. He had done so. That process was in train and that puts constraints on what the executive can do in relation to that individual.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): How can the Government simultaneously hold the position that the person should not be a refugee having stripped him of that right and yet believe that he would qualify to be a protected person and therefore not detain him on the basis that a deportation would be unsuccessful?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister responsible for the NZSIS): It is not for the Government to make the ultimate determination. The reason we have a quasi-judicial process in our immigration system is precisely because people independent of the Government ultimately make that determination. The Government might have received advice the Government might have had a view but in the end it is for those sitting in the appropriate authorities through the appeal process to make the determination. That determination had not been made.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): If the Government was waiting for that quasi-judicial process what was stopping a Minister from declaring them to be a threat to national security under section 163(1)?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister responsible for the NZSIS): Well I'm not in a position to give legal advice to the House but I can say that all of the agencies involved in managing this particular individual considered every step available to them to make sure the community was safe. That was the driving motivation for every agency involved with this individual—to keep the community safe.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Does the Minister think it respectful of New Zealanders' civil liberties to pass legislation under urgency or more rapidly than planned that among other things lowers the threshold for warrantless searches redefines terrorism" as "creating fear" and criminalises people for things they planned to do departing from centuries of tradition that you can only be in prison for things you've actually done?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister responsible for the NZSIS): I'll take a moment to reflect on the irony of that member having apparently castigated the Government on its failure to breach the rule of law and override a quasi-judicial process and now on the other hand assert rights that you know in very extreme circumstances could have caused danger. The member makes as he made before a point about legislation of this nature: legislation that bears upon the very difficult issues of national security threats posed by an individual and ordinarily calling for constraints on that individual is problematic for this House. This House is going to have to weigh up whether or not the laws we have at the moment and indeed the proposed laws that are working their way through the House are sufficient to keep the community safe. In the end that's why we have those laws. In the end that's why we debate those laws in this House.To the extent that that member is claiming there has been some sort of rush on the law—as I said in my statement the work on filling the gaps in our terrorism legislation started in August 2018. It has been a very deliberative process. The law was introduced some months ago to the House and has been working its way through the select committee process and will come back to the House. But there is a gap in the law and we've shown where there is a gap in the law that the community continues to be at risk. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I should just clarify for the Minister who referred to me as somehow not respecting the legal process my questions did not indicate the Government shouldn't respect due process; I was simply pointing out that the positions that the Government had taken with respect to the person's status as a refugee and a protected person seemed contradictory. And if anything the Government had second-guessed those processes and not taken all the actions it could have as the Prime Minister has claimed.But in any case I have one further question. Is the Government open to splitting the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill into two bills one to deal with relatively simple and urgent measures and another that could even have an extended select committee time if the select committee and Business Committee agreed to make sure that there was due consideration for more complex matters that may have arisen out of Friday's attack?Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: It's gone through a full select committee.Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister responsible for the NZSIS): Well there has been a very very long and considered deliberation of the proposals that are currently before the House. The executive took some time to put together the package that fills the gaps in the current legislation they've been considered by a select committee who are due to report back and so considerable effort has already been put in. So I think the member can organise his team—as indeed other parties can—to make sure that when the matters come back before the House there is good robust and considered debate of them. But I know that the select committee has given very careful consideration to it.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I note the Prime Minister's been heckling that it's gone through a full select committee process; that's simply untrue. It's had four months there have been submissions made but what traditionally happens is that submissions are heard and then MPs deliberate. It's one thing to accept submissions; it's another thing to have time to deliberate on those submissions and the advice from the department. So when the Prime Minister says it's had a full select committee process then it should have been referred to come back now anyway. The fact it's been asked to come back two months earlier—or at least that's what she proposes—shows it has not been a full select committee process. That's the second time in two weeks that the Prime Minister has been disrespectful to the importance of Parliament in my view. Thank you Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Order! The time for the—Hon Chris Hipkins: So much for a—SPEAKER: Order! Order! This is not the time for a Standing Orders seminar."