Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much Madam Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill. Look as chair of the Justice Committee first and foremost I would like to acknowledge all of the committee members present and I would like to note as Simon Bridges the previous member speaking pointed out that there was consensus in terms of some of the most significant issues the committee was required to consider and make a decision on. I would like to acknowledge the importance of that for all New Zealanders to know that there was consensus from parties—from Labour National ACT and the Green Party—at that committee in terms of very important issues particularly relating to how we define the act of terrorism. So I would like to take a moment to thank my parliamentary colleagues from other parties for your constructive work in that committee and for our ability to come to a good decision that hopefully will serve the safety and wellbeing for all New Zealanders in years to come. Events over the past two years have shown that New Zealand is in fact not immune at all to terrorism and that has reinforced the Government's resolve to put stronger and more up-to-date legislation in place to stop such activity. The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill does exactly that by bringing in new laws and new powers of search and surveillance to mean that somebody who is planning or preparing a terrorist attack is able to be apprehended before that act takes place. The changes that we are making here today bring New Zealand law into line with counter-terrorism legislation in other similar jurisdictions such as the UK Canada and also Australia. I think it's important to note that the committee did a job in terms of looking at the evolving nature of terrorism that we see across the world and also domestically. That changing threat requires New Zealand to give a legislative framework that supports the early management of risk—being able to detect and prevent activities that support or enable terrorism to take place—and the bill does that. It clarifies the Terrorism Suppression Act to provide law enforcement agencies with the means and clear legal authority to intervene early and to help prevent harm and to also escalate things when required so as to better protect against tragic events such as we've seen on March 15th in 2019 and only too recently on 3 September this year. The bill makes a range of changes but I would like to quickly point out the major change that the committee went through which was on the definition. I think it's really important for people tuning in or trying to understand what can be quite complex to point out that there is a three-bar test in terms of that definition as Andrew Little has pointed out already today. There needs to be a motive an intent and an outcome in order to prove that and the intent is really important. So currently under the law a terrorist act" must be done with the intent "to induce terror in a civilian population; or … to unduly compel or to force a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from … any act." The bill makes the following amendments: "induce terror" is changed to "intimidate" "civilian" is removed and "unduly compel" is changed to "coerce". So those are the key changes that in fact bring New Zealand's definition of a "terrorist act" into line with corresponding jurisdictions and it's at that point really that the committee had a thorough discussion and was able to reach consensus around the correct term for New Zealand's legislative framework. I'd like to note that on top of that three-bar test we also have an additional check. That's for the Attorney-General to approve prosecutions and it's particularly in relation to those preparatory offences. So I know I shouldn't speak too long but I should briefly talk about some of the submissions: 81 written submissions were received by the committee and 22 oral submissions were heard. One of the main points that we heard from submitters was the concern around human rights and again it's difficult. The committee was confronted by that balance of having to weigh up the safety and security of New Zealand people alongside of also protecting freedoms in our human rights of people. While many submitters highlighted concerns in that space that the bill may impact on the rights and freedoms in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act officials were really useful in explaining to members that they took a human rights approach in terms of developing the offences. In taking this approach offences have been drafted in a more targeted manner to comparable jurisdictions. As such officials considered that where rights and freedoms are impacted these limitations are justified and proportionate to their aim. The consequential outcome was this was confirmed by Crown Law in its assessment of the bill's compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and people can also find that online. That assessment is available to read. I'd like to conclude by saying that this has been a hard time in New Zealand's history but I would like to acknowledge all of those who took the time to submit on this bill and all of those members on the committee who took their time to most thoroughly consider the difficult decisions that lay before us with the thought in mind of making sure that we make New Zealand as safe as possible. I feel reassured that we have done our job in bringing this bill back to the House in its current shape. Therefore I commend the bill to the House."