Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I'm very encouraged to hear the closing words of the Hon Andrew Little then talking about how any legislative change that comes before the House will be done in a careful and considered manner. One of the things that I said in response to the Minister's statement prior to question time was that when such laws are rushed through in a knee-jerk response to events they often end up harming innocent people particularly communities including Māori immigrant communities and refugee communities. There is a real risk here that because the terrorist last Friday in West Auckland was someone who had come to this country from another country and was attempting to use the refugee and immigration system in order to stay here people from his community his family other migrant communities and so on and other religious or ethnic groups could well be stigmatised and we know that the risk of that is very real.I am worried about a knee-jerk rush to pass a law in the next few weeks which although it has received some consideration has not yet completed its normal process through the House. When it comes to our precedent for this sort of thing we know that there have been increased harms that have been visited upon communities who don't deserve it and have nothing to do with the people who are wanting to or do or are planning to commit acts of terror in the New Zealand community.The law as it was drafted—and I haven't seen the report of the committee yet because of course it hasn't yet reported back—as it went into the select committee had some real issues to it and these are things that you might say would be typical for the Green Party to say but there were very thorough submissions and very firm views held by the Law Commission the Human Rights Commission and the Privacy Commissioner about that law as well. That is because it essentially deals with crimes that have not happened yet and the possibility that we could be criminalising somebody for some form of future crime.The corollary of this as well is that every time we increase the powers of the secret services or the police to deal with things such as through the Terrorism Suppression Act we have to be mindful of the institutions that are wielding those powers. They have had a history in this country of targeting communities and individuals who on the basis of—it's politely called institutional bias; at its worst it's outright racism. This is some of the issue that the royal commission of inquiry pointed to after 15 March when it essentially said that the services were looking in the wrong place—that one of the reasons why we missed the terrorist in Christchurch on March 15 is because he didn't fit the profile that our services were looking for. So whilst there has been an enormous amount of work done—and I do want to credit the Hon Andrew Little for that and also his predecessor the Hon Chris Finlayson for the work they have done on trying to ensure that those organisations and those institutions that are charged with keeping New Zealanders safe are actually looking at people who may be committing violence regardless of what those people look like what background they come from. We do need that consideration to be part of the deliberation of this House when we do get around to examining that piece of legislation.The other thing that worries us is the possibility that we may be making it easier to deport people. The corollary of that is that we are essentially saying that people who commit violence in our society are foreigners and that the solution is to deport them whereas that is not always going to be the case and if our attention is on people who do come to this country then we can quite easily miss our own home-grown terrorists as well. We know that there are still issues of racism and extreme ideology in this country and that it's not exclusive to people who come here from overseas.We also know that what happened on Friday was committed by somebody who had huge problems and that in his multiple interactions with various services in the course of his time in this country before the events on Friday things that could have happened to de-radicalise him—to provide mental health support and rehabilitation—did not happen. He spent time in prison and we don't have in this country a standardised rehabilitation programme across our prison systems. In the prison system he could have had mental health counselling he could have been put into a de-radicalisation programme but those weren't there—didn't exist—and one of the challenges there is that there are things that we could have done that wouldn't have involved deportation and that would also apply to people who are New Zealand citizens as well as people from overseas.One thing that I said in my response to the Minister's statement earlier is that it is clear that none of us in this House want anything like that to ever happen again and the question that I have is: are we now rushing to provide a solution to a problem which does exist but which is in itself ineffective and could create other problems including the possibility that actions taken under these extended powers actually have the opposite effect from that which we intend? In other words can it lead to more radicalisation and a sort of counter-reaction depending on how it's exercised who exercises it and whether there are any miscarriages of justice that occur under it?I do want wrap up by bringing our attention back to the people who suffered violence on Friday and their families. It is really quite shocking to think that people who are going about business as mundane as shopping at a local supermarket would be exposed to that kind of violence. I know that we're all very grateful that it wasn't worse only because of the very rapid intervention of the police who had the terrorist under 24-hour monitoring. If they hadn't then we know it would have been a lot worse.I think where we want to stop and reflect on any lessons learnt is to say: are there things that could have happened over the course of the last few years that could have made a difference and could have rehabilitated and de-radicalised this person before he became so extremely disturbed that he went and performed this act of violence and ultimately ended up losing his own life as a result? I have to say on the face of it there do seem to have been some gaps that could have been filled and our attention should be on those things as much as they are on any of the changes in the legislative framework that we have coming up in front of us.