Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise as the member of Parliament for Southland to speak on this bill the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill. The purpose of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill is to strengthen New Zealand's counter-terrorism laws to address contemporary terrorist threats which come in all sorts of different shapes and guises as we've seen unfortunately with the March 2019 attack in Christchurch and I express my sorrow and thoughts for the victims and family of that attack. Then we've had the recent 3 September 2021 attack in LynnMall Auckland and again my thoughts and my heart goes out to the victims and their families of that attack. Both of these were lone wolf attacks and show how very challenging these are to counteract and that is not unusual around the world. This bill aims to improve the clarity of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 and provides law enforcement agencies with clear legal authority to prevent and disrupt terrorism-related activity. The National Party has confidence that the right balance between liberty and security has been struck in this bill as it has been on foot since 2008 when the work first started with officials being directed to explore possible improvements to counter-terrorism legislation. It has gone through the Justice Committee and has been thoroughly considered. So this bill has been brought forward but it has been carefully considered and the right balance we believe has been struck. I would note that there are some new offences that have been created by this bill and new offences must be carefully considered to ensure that the right balance is struck. These new offences would criminalise travelling to from or via New Zealand with the intention to carry out a terrorist attack to plan or prepare for a terrorist attack and to have weapons training or combat training for a terrorist purpose. It also amends the definition of terrorist act" by changing some of the purpose and intention elements.It's important to have a look at the new definition of "a terrorist act". It contains three elements. The first element is an intention to cause serious outcomes such as death or bodily injury. The second element is for a purpose of advancing an ideological political or religious cause. The third element is an intention to cause fear in a population or coerce or force a Government or international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act. It's important that there are those three elements because there has been some concern raised—and the Green Party has rightly raised the concerns expressed by some folks—that activism could be caught by this legislation. The select committee heard from Paul Elwell-Sutton the council of trade liberties that he recommended "activism" be excluded from the definition of "terrorist act". The officials did not consider this to be appropriate s for conduct of any kind to be captured by the terrorist act definition all three elements of the definition must be met. This includes the intent to cause one of the serious harms such as injury or death. It is difficult to countenance any activism which would intend to cause harm or death which would be legitimate and certainly I don't think it could be classified as legitimate if its intention was to cause injury or death. Therefore legitimate activism will not be captured by this legislation. Clause 6 also has an amendment from what was originally intended to be "induce terror in a civilian population" which existed previously was to be changed to "to induce fear in a population." And although I'm not a member of the select committee I did happen to sit on it when this question was being raised and I did ask some questions. I did have a personal concern that that would dilute it too far. I'm pleased to see that it has been amended: "induce terror in a civilian population" would now be "to intimidate a population" which is a higher threshold and I think it is the right one. "Carrying out includes preparations credible threats and attempts" is in new section 5A in clause 6. And it requires some actual knowledge. So there has been quite careful consideration to how this bill has been drafted.If I look at clause 10 "Section 8 amended (Financing of terrorism)" I note that the purpose of this clause is to comply with New Zealand's international obligations under the United Nations Security Council resolutions. And in line with that the bill inserts "material support" into the scope of what cannot be provided to a designated terrorist entity and also criminalises support that has been provided recklessly. I note that there has been some concern raised that there would be legitimate aid organisations—that people would seek to support places or people and children for example in a war-torn environment—and they could be captured by this; however there is a carve-out which addresses this and that is in subsection (5) which says "Material support excludes humanitarian support to satisfy basic needs". And it goes further to note: "[if that] is provided (a) in good faith for genuine humanitarian reasons; and (b) impartially or neutrally as between people who have those needs." So there is a carve-out that explicitly protects those people who wish to provide support to those in war-torn environments that's for a purpose of assisting people for humanitarian purposes and not to support or be reckless as to support for terrorist organisations or aims.I'll just have a look at new section 13AA which is: "Providing or receiving weapons training or combat training for terrorist purposes". I note that there has been some concern that this could capture people who receive training for reasons of self-defence. However I note that the person to commit an offence would have to do so if they provide or receive weapons training or combat training and knew that the training was provided or received for a purpose which would include to carry out one or more terrorist acts whether any or all of them are actually carried out or not and/or to enhance the ability of any entity to carry out or to participate in the carrying out of one or more terrorist acts whether any or all of them are actually carried out. So that would clearly exclude someone receiving training for the purpose of self-defence. Someone receiving training for self-defence would not also be doing so to carry out a terrorist act.I note that another concern that has been raised is proposed warrantless powers which the police or other relevant agencies need to detect concerning behaviour so that they can act effectively to prevent a terrorist act being carried out. Given the fluid and unpredictable nature by which planning may move to more advanced conduct to commit a terrorist act warrantless powers are necessary to identify the relevant behaviour and to intervene quickly to prevent such activity escalating. Police need powers to take appropriate action to intervene to preclude the attack and without warrantless powers that may not be possible until too late. The way this has been framed is appropriate. The exercise of the warrantless powers in question requires reasonable grounds to believe that evidence relating to the planning or preparation offence is in the place of or on the person to be searched. In relation to searches of place there must be reasonable grounds to believe that if entry is delayed the evidential material will be destroyed concealed altered or damaged. Reasonable grounds to believe requires a high degree of certainty from the officer exercising the power. It does not permit fishing expeditions in the hope that relevant evidence will be obtained or a mere hunch that unless entry is secured the evidence may be destroyed concealed altered or damaged. Again the right balance has been struck here.With that I'll just wind up my comments by noting that the National Party takes the security of New Zealanders very seriously and it's a pleasure to note that the Hon Mark Mitchell who would have loved to be here tonight to speak on this given his deep experience in this field is now the spokesperson for counter-terrorism and will do a fine job of that. With that I commend the bill to the House."