McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): I stand before you today as the member for the ACT Party supporting this piece of legislation the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill through its first reading. We do have some reservations but we believe that these can be addressed through the select committee process. Legislation of this nature needs to be analysed with the utmost care. Very few pieces of legislation have such powers to suspend people's liberties as our terrorist-suppression legislation does. And while ACT believes that such legislation is justified the onus is firmly on us elected lawmakers to make sure that the problem the legislation is seeking to solve is well defined that the provisions are justified and that we are also balancing infringements on liberty with the needs of suppressing the risks of potential terror acts.To that end we continue to trust in a robust and consultative process of lawmaking and that it can be undertaken here by allowing the full time to be set aside for the select committee to hear and consider submissions. One would expect that there are a number of non-terrorist groups who may feel compelled to submit on this bill with concerns of being unduly caught up in what they would deem as innocent activities. While we work through how to upgrade our terrorism laws we must ensure that we do not do so at the expense of civil liberties. ACT recognises that the threat of terrorism is more complex than it was in 2002 when the Terrorism Suppression Bill was first introduced and much of this bill provides some sensible updates to this legislation; hence we are supporting it. However we do have several reservations as mentioned before. Our primary reservations relate to the seriousness of some of the provisions that are contained in the bill and ensuring that the powers we are enacting are used well. For example as mentioned before there are suggested suppression orders which allow for wide-ranging restrictions on the liberty of certain persons. There are also provisions allowing warrantless searches for preparatory offences. We would by default also allow for wider and less accountable searches. And by making changes to surveillance laws we would be allowing surveillance for lesser offences than what is already the status quo. If we change the definition of terrorist act" we could potentially lower the standard that must be passed that authorises those search and surveillance powers. There are good justifications made by officials in relation to these powers but they are of concern simply by the nature of what they do. All lawmakers should take an interest in law that seeks to widen the power of the State and ensure that it is being used well.The risk is always that if provisions are not used well or are ill defined people who are not intended to be affected by these provisions end up being harmed by them. I well note for example the concerns that have been raised around the actions of our security services in the past towards the Islamic community—similarly concerns from Māori communities who have in the past felt unduly targeted. In my own career I have been involved in a community that has been subject to undue vilification following the unconscionable actions of one person. I have already been contacted by people involved in legal sports such as recreational firearms use who are worried that the provisions of this bill could target them. We need to have a fulsome debate that addresses concerns such as these and clearly defines the types of problems this bill is seeking to solve. We have to make sure that we get this right.Now for the bits that we think need work and why. Making it an offence for web-based fund-raising tools could mean that foreign terrorist fighters or lone actors are more likely to be captured. The suggested new laws around material support would include transportation accommodation and stockpiling of resources. We join the concerns that the current frameworks are not satisfactory but add that a robust select committee debate needs to be had to ensure that there isn't the unintended capture of an innocent person framed as being a potential or perceived terrorist for their normal activities.This bill also wants to criminalise the planning or preparation of a terrorist act. In order to facilitate proving this there is a provision to apply warrantless powers of entry and of search and surveillance. We can see the obvious benefits of being able to disrupt terrorism-related activity in this way but we do believe the standard that currently needs to be met will be lowered and this is of concern to us. The lowered standard could be abused by officials to the detriment of the innocent. Yes we recognise that there are some safeguards against misuse of a warrantless search including it being used when a serious or imminent threat is identified and we also recognise that this power could only be exercised when a warrant could not have been readily obtained. But this change does have human rights implications and there are concerns the law could be abused. But again we believe that this can be addressed through the select committee process.We're looking forward to participating in the debate ascertaining what the new definition of a terrorist act would could or should be. Bandied around are descriptions of fear or intimidation. We believe that would set a much lower standard and unjustly capture unintended persons. We will argue that the standards need to be kept high and we believe that the current descriptor of terror does that. There are powers proposed in this bill to cancel passports and travel documents. Our view is that this may not enable intervention in some cases—for example where a person holds a dual or foreign passport. We must also consider that if we prevent travel of a suspected terrorist are we going to be creating a domestic security issue? Nevertheless the offence would enable police to prosecute individuals and manage their risk according to the outcome of that prosecution and we're interested in the views of the community here.Now that I've outlined some reservations I would like to speak to the elements within the bill that we do agree with. We support the clearer wording around the financing of terrorism. It allows for prosecution for earlier intentions prior to an act of terror being commissioned. It also criminalises travelling to and from New Zealand for the purpose of supporting terrorism. While we do have some existing laws that capture some of the behaviour leading up to a terrorist event we note that there is currently no specific offence in New Zealand law for travelling here to undertake terrorist activities. The reality is that people travelling to fight for terrorism purposes is a global problem and one that will not go away even with restricted travel being experienced right now. Eventually people will be on the move once borders begin reopening around the world and it would be prudent to prepare this legislation on terrorist financing before it does. This all modernises the legislation that we currently have and it will better reflect as well as manage the risks that we are facing today.Therefore with so many questions but a knowledge of the need to update the 2002 Act we support this bill through the first reading and into the select committee stage. In doing so we request that full time be allocated to allow submissions from all interested parties to take place in a manner that is not rushed but thoughtfully contemplated. Thank you Madam Speaker."