Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister responsible for the NZSIS): Mr Speaker thank you and I acknowledge the Hon Judith Collins the member who's resumed her seat and I agree with her that this is a very important issue and a very important topic. Issues of national security are. This was a matter of national security. The individual at the centre of this case had been identified as early as 2016 as being a person of interest to our agencies and it was at that point that the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service doing its job and having identified the person worked with other agencies to ensure that there were interventions to ensure that whatever could be done to keep the community safe from him was done. It might be noted that of course the individual was a fraction younger at that time. He came to this country at a reasonably young age and we tend to have a view for those who offend at a younger age even if it's not a very young age that every effort is made to turn around troubled lives so that they may lead good lives and that was no different in this case. Without understating and underestimating the level of risk that he posed nevertheless efforts were made to intervene in a way that was constructive and hopefully helpful. Following him being identified in 2016 and interventions being staged he then undertook to travel overseas clearly with a purpose to further his ideologically extremist views and to fight with ISIS. He was intercepted and prevented from travelling. That happened in fulfilment of our international obligations. Upon further inquiry and investigation by the police a considerable amount of objectionable material that he was using as well as a weapon was found in his possession and he was arrested and charged and remanded in custody. He was held in custody for a number of months. He was released in 2018 and within six weeks was rearrested and charged with offences. Different Acts different actions but along the same lines: objectionable material and having a weapon. It was very clear to the authorities through the way this man had expressed himself online and the way he had spoken to others that he clearly had a vision a fantasy or possibly a plan that he wanted to carry out at some point that was about causing harm to others. While this was happening and most of the time while he was in custody it was this Government that took the step of reviewing the Terrorism Suppression Act because we were aware there were gaps in that legislation. As I recall as Minister of Justice it was pretty much one of the first pieces of advice I received. It was that this was an area that needed attention and through a combination of the Ministry of Justice at that time and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet who was giving advice to the Prime Minister—who was also and is the Minister for National Security and Intelligence—a programme of work was embarked upon from August 2018. We knew that one of the big gaps was the planning and preparation offences. We knew that that had to be covered off and so a considerable amount of work had to be done on that. Our parliamentary colleague David Seymour as well as the Leader of the Opposition have identified that actually there is a real tension here between at what point the criminal law intercedes a person's actions to say that what you're doing is criminal when there is no completed act of violence or harm caused to another. It's a challenge for jurisdictions around the world and particularly in our Commonwealth jurisprudence based on the countries with whom we are most closely aligned or at least our legal systems are that our systems struggle with at what point do you decide somebody has acted criminally. When you look at the events of Friday for this particular person you ask yourself at what point was it evident that this person had a plan that could fall under any definition of planning and preparing for an offence. He'd left the place where he was domiciled he'd boarded a train he had gone to the supermarket—these were all things that were within his routine or at least such routine as he was able to establish in the seven weeks since his release from prison—and then he found himself in the supermarket he saw a knife and he took that knife and he harmed others. When the House comes to deliberate over the legislation that is being considered by the select committee that is the debate we have to have. That is the debate this House has to have: where do you draw that criminal line? It is clear we need to have one. It is clear we need to have an offence that relates to preparation and planning of violence and extreme acts and this House will get the opportunity to deliberate on where the drawn line is. I know there are some who are saying—and the Leader of the Opposition herself alluded to it—what other actions could have been taken under other legislation and the leader of the ACT Party referred to the Immigration Act. He referred to sections 163 and 164 I think—well he referred to section 163. It would have been helpful if he had referred to section 164. Section 163 is very clear that the Minister does have a power to deport and give advice to the Governor-General to do that but section 164 says something else. It says that no person who is recognised as a refugee or protected person may be deported and section 164 goes on in subsection (2) to say that that subsection applies despite anything in that part of the Act. It is not possible to deport somebody who has refugee status. Even when that status is being challenged even when it's under review and even when it is being reconsidered by the immigration and refugee tribunal it is not possible to deport and that matter was considered. I'd say what I said in answer to questions following the ministerial statement: I assure this House as the Prime Minister did as early as Friday afternoon that every step that could be taken that any of the Government authorities could take to keep the community safe and to keep New Zealanders safe from this person it was taken. It was considered. But we are a country of the rule of law and our agencies do not act arbitrarily; they act within the law. They did so and they did a tremendous job and put in a tremendous effort to strive to keep New Zealanders safe to the point where he having exhausted his detention time in prison he could not be detained for any longer. He had been convicted he had been sentenced he had served a number of years in prison the judge had placed him under a supervision order and put orders on what he could and could not do and the police with the support of the intelligence agencies placed him under the most intense monitoring I suspect that just about anybody has been under at any time. He was placed under intense monitoring and was followed in a safe way but followed with a view to keeping New Zealanders safe. The other thing that can be said about him is that as is not unusual with somebody carrying his views he had a level of paranoia. He was as they say security aware. He took steps to evade authorities. He suspected he was under surveillance but he took steps to evade that surveillance anyway and that posed challenges as well for a surveillance team.Whenever we are faced with events like this as we were with March 2019—again a lone-actor attack but in quite different circumstances—it is right for us as a nation and certainly for this House as the place where our laws are made to take pause and to reflect on what we might do that might improve the situation should a situation like this arise in the future—and God willing it never will. But we have to have laws that reflect the level of risk and threat that we face at the moment. This Government had started that process. That is why we have introduced amendments to the Terrorism Suppression Act. But let us look at the other pieces of legislation that might be relevant here: the Immigration Act. What do we do with somebody to whom we grant protection; to whom we say This is a safe place for you you have persuaded our authorities that you were in danger in your home country and this is now a safe place of refuge for you". We have an international obligation to offer that to those who seek asylum to those who come across our border in fear for their lives because of the place that they have come from. But that cannot be unconditional. When we offer a place of refuge and respite to those who genuinely need it that cannot be an excuse for those who then want to cause harm to New Zealanders and turn that status on its head. Does our law adequately reflect that? Does our law allow us to act in those circumstances in the very rare circumstances I expect that that would ever arise in? Perhaps it doesn't and so perhaps we should reconsider it and we will have a look at that. Is there anything about the powers of the Police of our intelligence agencies that we would need to reconsider and to change? Well the royal commission of inquiry into the Christchurch mosque attacks had a very thorough examination of our intelligence and security legislation of our police powers mainly in relation to the Arms Act. They came up with some recommendations and we are in the process of fulfilling those recommendations including providing a level of consolidation around the way in which intelligence is led in New Zealand. I think we have—and you might say "Well you would say that because you're the Minister in charge of them"—two excellent intelligence agencies in the form of the SIS and the GCSB; they do a terrific job. They act under the powers that they've got and they are assiduous in making sure that they act within the law. Nevertheless the royal commission has said that there are some things we could do that would if not improve the exercise of powers under that legislation actually make sure that our intelligence function has a style and form of leadership that is looking over the horizon that is looking for future risks and that is making sure that the environment within which our operational agencies work is going to have the greatest effect in providing protection and security for New Zealand. But that work is under way and we will continue that. We will continue that sort of leadership and we will continue to examine all those things—the laws the agencies and the authorities—that bear upon the events that happened on Friday afternoon.I might say this too in terms of the effort taken by agencies to deal with this particular individual—one of those was to lay a charge under the Terrorism Suppression Act and that was ruled out by a judge. The judge considered the charge considered the legislation and it was that judge that reminded us all—effectively what the Solicitor-General said in 2007 is that nothing in that legislation allows for prosecution of an act that is an act of preparation or preparing for a violent terrorist offence. We have the opportunity to repair that now. We have the opportunity to fill that gap.As this House has already done today it is always important to come back to the people who are foremost in our minds and that is the innocent victims the innocent shoppers who were confronted with a most violent and extreme act of terror on Friday afternoon. We bear that in mind. But in the end it is for this House using its deliberative function using the intellect and talent assembled within us as we consider these important issues—very important issues of national security—that bear upon our freedoms that bear upon our human rights but ultimately are there about affording us protection as a nation to think carefully about what new and next steps we take in light of Friday's horrific act. I'm confident this House will do that. I'm encouraged by the messages that have come from the Leader of the Opposition and her party and others to make sure that when we get the opportunity to debate the Terrorism Suppression Act and indeed any other piece of legislation that we consider requires further examination we will do so in a considered function. I'm confident that we will reach the right outcome because I'm equally confident that every member in this House has in their heart one wish and that is the safety and security of all New Zealanders."