McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Madam Chair I seek leave of the House in the first instance to acknowledge that it's World Alzheimer's Day today and I'd like to just take this opportunity to thank the families and the caregivers of those who look after people with Alzheimer's and dementia in our communities.I'm standing today to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill. The ACT Party opposes the passage of this bill due to the process adopted by the Government to progress it at speed. The bill was due to be reported back to the House on 5 November and we see no clear reason for its passage to be hurried. We recognise the increase in worldwide terrorist attacks and how we are now more involved in the consequences of terrorist actions so we view this as an important bill that needs careful consideration. Care must be taken when we start to trade off the provisions intended to increase security of the public against the freedoms and rights of the very people that we're trying to protect.We made great progress with the bill and I would like to thank the Ministry of Justice and Parliamentary Counsel Office for attending to our questions and the Ministry of Justice for preparing their substantive report in answering the many questions that I had. However having the liberty of time that should have been afforded this bill we could have perhaps weighed in on some other matters with more consideration and perhaps even sought further changes.The Prime Minister announced that there is no concern that another terror attack would be imminent but rather the Government now wanted to have this bill progress and be done by the end of this month. ACT had argued that we would have been prepared to support a more streamlined process where specific parts of the bill were advanced in order to fix the gaps that had been identified in the national framework so that we could then spend more time on the rest of the bill and weigh up that much-needed balance between security and impeding on freedoms.This bill goes beyond the specific events that have occurred. It goes beyond fixing the gaps identified in what was already the rushed legislation of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002. It goes beyond fixing the mistakes that were made in the 2007 amendment and we simply cannot justify supporting rushed legislation that advances the wholesale rewriting of our counter-terror legislation. Now that's not to say that we're opposing it for opposition's sake because we are not. ACT supported the Government's Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Act earlier this year because there was an imminent problem about to emerge that did concern public safety. The differences are that the child sex offender Act was narrow in its scope. It sought to solve a well-defined problem and also had significant sensitivities to it. But this counter-terrorism bill is vast in its scope. It seeks to solve several problems which people have raised concerns of the unintended impacts on. I hope that during the select committee process we actually manage to capture all of the concerns raised but we are now restricted by a shortened time frame from having the ability to garner feedback from those communities on our changes.ACT maintains what was stated in the first reading speech where I said 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 [attacks]." In the next paragraph I'd made a statement about trusting in the robust process allowing the full time to be set aside for select committee. Such is our distrust in some of the lawmaking processes where speed for no real reason is at the heart of how our law is made—at times with errors and to the detriment of others.As a lawmaker I take interest in—and ACT believes we should all take an interest in—law that seeks to widen the power of the State and ensure that it is being used well. Rushing this bill's progress despite the significant concerns raised by submitters can risk gaps being left and exploited. That can leave the trade-off between security and freedoms being unbalanced with executive overreach then being permitted. 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. Those from the licensed firearms community raised concerns about the section that increases the powers of warrantless searches and surveillance. But they should have some relief in the knowledge that officials must have reasonable belief that planning is under way and there is intent to commit a terrorist act and also in the fact that the warrantless searches should only occur where a court warrant was reasonably unobtainable. This section should not be used as a means of targeting minority or ethnic groups.Concerns have been raised around the history of our approach to security towards certain communities. Similar concerns have been raised about the potential to lower the bar for what criminal behaviour is and whether this is a credible barometer for a threat of terrorism. To give an example there is a new section 8 which relates to providing material support in the form of collecting using or distributing funds. The Justice Committee have made changes to make it quite clear as to what activities this material support would include but we've used words that aren't defined for this context such as "reckless". It's used throughout section 8 and subsections (1) through to (2B) where in paragraph (d) of each the bill speaks of "intending that the [funds or] material support be used or knowing that or being reckless about whether [they] will be used". The word "reckless" is one that should cause some concern because the case law around its use differs depending on where it was used and therefore there is no defining case law as it changes depending on its context. I would have liked us to explore this a bit more. It may actually be OK but I feel we haven't made it clear for the courts to interpret.The new section 13AA that speaks to the weapon and combat training was one section where I was particularly interested in its wording and I have pleasingly found that the threshold of an instructor or provider is one of knowledge of the intent of the person being trained. That is very clear and not as ambiguous as using "reckless".ACT commends the work of submitters in raising some of their robust concerns in their submissions especially the ethnic minority and religious groups that appeared before us speaking of concerns where situations like Operation Eight could occur and also those who raised concerns about sending money overseas to their families. I hope we've managed to allay some of those concerns with the changes that have been suggested. I also hope that we have allayed the concerns of the New Zealand Law Society the Human Rights Commission and the Privacy Commissioner. ACT also commends the work of the officials and the work of the select committee who strived to deliver workable solutions for all. But nevertheless the ACT Party cannot unfortunately support the progress of this bill at this stage. Thank you Mr Speaker."