SpeechCOUNTER-TERRORISM ACTS (DESIGNATIONS AND CONTROL ORDERS) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill.DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I move That the Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. We have seen the horrific impact that terrorist attacks have had here in Aotearoa. Four years on from the terror attack on the Christchurch mosques I want to acknowledge the enduring harm of terror attacks on victims in the broader Muslim community. The evolving threat of terrorism means that our counter-terrorism legislation must be kept up to date to protect our communities. The bill before us is part of the Government's wider response to the recommendation made by the royal commission of inquiry into the terror attack on Christchurch. It enhances our counter-terrorism legislation by clarifying and strengthening our protections against high-risk individuals. I want to acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee for its diligent consideration of the bill. The committee received 210 submissions of whom four presented an oral submission. I thank those who took the time to provide a submission to the committee.I want to highlight the key changes the committee made that warrant closer examination. The first part of the bill makes changes to the designation scheme of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 to clarify its application to imprisoned individuals. The second makes amendments to strengthen the control orders regime in the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Act 2019. These amendments expand the eligibility criteria for a control order give the courts more discretion when imposing conditions and adjust the settings related to name suppression. I want to start by discussing the first part of the bill—and particularly the role that the Prime Minister has—with its powers to designate a group or individual that has carried out or participated in a terrorist act as a terrorist entity. A designation places restrictions on that group or individual aimed at preventing them from funding or receiving funds to support further terrorist activities. The bill clarifies the application of the Prime Minister's power in relation to renewal of a designation of an individual who is imprisoned. Under the current law a prisoner must have their designation removed after three years if it cannot be demonstrated that they present an ongoing risk of terrorist activity. However when a person is in prison it is the restrictions placed on them by their designation and incarceration that may prevent them from posing a risk. Were their designation to be removed they could financially support others in carrying out terrorist acts. So to address this the bill pauses the expiration of a designation whilst that person is in prison. Instead a review process is used to ensure the designation is removed if and when it is no longer necessary to prevent them from being able to support terrorism. I want to acknowledge that many submitters were concerned that the bill gives the Prime Minister too much power in designating entities. It's important to note that the bill does not change how designations are made—the Prime Minister already has that power to designate—and that there are significant safeguards on how that power is exercised. The bill is focused on clarifying the Prime Minister's powers in respect of prisoners who are already designated. So I want to acknowledge the changes made to the application of the bill to youth offenders. We know that young people are increasingly targets of extremist groups and subject to radicalisation online. It's important to ensure we are safeguarding the rights of young people while reducing the risk of terrorist activity.The bill originally applied to young people designated as terrorists serving a sentence of imprisonment in a youth justice residence. This was on the basis that youth justice residences have similar restrictions to adult custodial sentencing. The committee received additional advice from officials demonstrating that youth justice residences are more open environments. This means the Prime Minister would be able to more accurately assess whether a designated young person continued to pose a risk of carrying out terrorist acts. As such the select committee has recommended that the bill should only apply to young people who are in a correctional facility or police custody.Since the bill was introduced in October the Security Information in Proceedings Act has been passed and that will come into effect later this year. These Acts provide designated persons with the right to request a summary of classified information when it is used to inform a decision about them. The committee has recommended changes to align the bill with this legislation as it will commence prior to those Acts coming into force. With respect to the second part of the bill it amends the control orders regime. Control orders are civil orders made on application by the Police Commissioner and granted by the High Court. The purpose of the control orders is to ensure public safety by imposing requirements on high-risk individuals to minimise their risk of engaging in terrorism. The bill proposes targeted changes that respond to the changing nature of terrorism risk as well as the lessons learnt from Aotearoa's first ever control order. These changes include a modest extension of the eligibility criteria for control orders the removal of automatic name suppression and giving greater direction to the courts in setting control order requirements in line with similar post-detention orders.The committee has not recommended substantive changes to the bill in relation to control orders. I do want to just acknowledge briefly though that there is the expansion of the eligibility test with respect to these control orders. I note that this expansion is necessary given the way that we've seen the evolving nature of terrorism both domestically and internationally. Law enforcement agencies have advised that use of these types of objectionable publications depicting extreme violence and cruelty are markers of terrorism risk. This behaviour and activity has been identified in people who have either been investigated for violent extremism or have committed a terrorist act.So to reassure the public that there are several protections in the law to ensure control orders are granted only in appropriate circumstances I provide the example of where a control order can only be granted where an individual has been sentenced for a qualifying offence and in addition is shown to pose a real risk of engaging in terrorism-related activity. This means a control order cannot be sought or granted simply because an individual possesses or distributes an objectionable publication. As such I consider that this bill strikes the right balance of protecting the public from terrorism and safeguarding those rights to freedom of speech.Finally the minor technical changes were made to provisions that relate to electronic monitoring requirements as part of the control order which I won't get into in much substance this afternoon. I want to again just acknowledge the work of the committee and those that have submitted. I'm confident that this bill will strengthen New Zealand's counter-terrorism legislation and enable us to better prevent and respond to terrorism. Therefore I commend this bill to the House.