Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. The Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill comes to this House in the context of the deadliest act of terror in our nation's living memory: the mosque attacks on 15 March. It comes in the context of the horrifying rise of extremism around the globe including the likes of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) as well as white nationalist extremism. It comes in the context of the now eight-year Syrian war where we know New Zealanders travelled to support terrorism and violence harming countless victims. We know that the United Nations and the communities over there have asked the nations who have supplied foreign fighters to bring them home to see justice. They don't have the facility to do that and frankly they don't feel safe to do it. So we do have a responsibility. But this bill also comes to this House in the context of decades of harmful prejudice-filled rhetoric of the war on terror trumpeted by the likes of George Bush and Tony Blair to justify their war crimes their unlawful wars that have riled up villainised the people of that region; fearmongering to justify cuts to human rights—the kind of prejudice that led to the 15 March attack. From Guantanamo Bay to Trump's so-called Muslim ban lawmaking that was led by fear and bigotry has never made anyone more safe. So we the Green Party take this seriously. We've got to get it right.Now in that broad context turning to this bill it would allow the court to impose civil orders on persons over the age of 18 who have travelled overseas to support or participate in what—there is a real risk—were acts of terror or terrorist-related activities; to be brought under the orders. This is assessed on a balance of probabilities. We are not talking about anyone who is charged under our Terrorism Suppression Act which does have extraterritorial jurisdiction by the way. So this is separate from that. This is a separate kind of accused person. There's a lower threshold there's less evidence and there's less risk but we do want to do something about it. The order if granted by the court enables active supervision and monitoring of the returnee. There's a range of conditions. That assessment will be made based on police information that they've obtained in correspondence with foreign agencies and groups where the person has gone allegedly to partake in activities related to terrorism. It could include monitoring and supervision or surveillance of their electronic devices. It could include bans from owning firearms. It could include bans from association and communication with certain groups if that is related to the risk of terror. And it would include if the court saw fit the requirement that the person be assessed for mental health purposes and also assessed so that they could have a de-radicalisation plan made for them. The orders would be individualised in each case.But we know that the infringement of civil liberties in any case is serious. Although right now the focus is on Mark Taylor the likes of Mark Taylor—he being a self-confessed supporter of ISIS who travelled to the Middle East to support that terrorist group. He's made statements already talking about the kind of support he gave that harmed people that helped ISIS. We know that. But this bill wouldn't only apply to Mark Taylor. We're not just making a law for one man. So we do have to get it right so that there are not unforeseen consequences for people that go beyond that. We want to catch people who are at risk of harming New Zealand. That law will have to aim to do that because it's only justifiable to limit civil liberties based on an actual risk of harm. We're not going to run Guantanamo Bay despite what the National Party might want. That is why the Green Party has a long history of standing up against so-called anti-terrorism laws that do nothing but make politicians look tough on crime. We're going to focus on safety and we're going to do that by making sure the processes are fair and robust. We had a press release out today that outlined the changes we got. We got all the changes that we'd asked for. I'm really sorry that the National Party seems to be quoting from two- or three-day-old newspaper clippings or whatever it was. Sorry. So I'll outline the press release. It was also you know all over the media. Hon Clare Curran: They've always been a bit behind. GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: A bit behind is in fact a euphemism for archaic—embarrassingly archaic over there. We will support law that upholds the standards of due process that New Zealanders expect from their lawmakers and institutions. So we will support law that applies our standards of terrorism. That's why we have only agreed to this bill with that change intact. We will not import the definitions of terror" from jurisdictions where feminism is considered an act of terror which it might be where I'm from in Iran. We're not going to persecute the rainbow community who are seen as being political dissidents and thereby terrorists elsewhere in the world. We are not going to persecute the likes of Ahmed Zaoui and we know that that law in New Zealand did that. We held an Opposition party MP from Algeria without charge or trial based on secret classified information for two years. New Zealand is not that nation. New Zealanders expect better. So the change we've got is that the definition of "terror" under New Zealand law will apply. I don't know who would argue with that.The next change that we have is the highest standard of procedural fairness in our law to date when it comes to the use of classified information that's kept secret from the accused anywhere in our system. It's a change that the Law Commission recommended; it's international best practice. We agree with the experts on this one. That change is that if secret information is to be used under this legislation it will first be determined by a judge that it would in fact cause harm to the safety of individuals or be a serious national security threat if it were disclosed to the accused and even in that case a special advocate who has the correct security clearance will have access to it so that they can further the interests of the defence so that we know that that information is in fact relevant—for example that's it's reliant.Why would you want information involved in a case that's not relevant or reliant? It's so hard to know but we don't want that. The courts don't want that. The Law Commission doesn't want that and we agree. We agree that this law should only catch people who are in fact a threat of terror to our country. We have agreed that we will have the right due process standards. We will have the correct definition and in doing that—in getting our bottom lines—we also through happy coincidence will stop the archaic rights-abusing changes that the National Party wanted to impose: indefinite application holding children. No we're not going down the route of Guantanamo Bay. We are not going down that route—we are not going down that route. We are not going to support changes—[Interruption]—proposed by people who are yelling "They have no rights." like Mr Bennett over there yelling "They don't have rights." That's what we're dealing with here; that's what we've stopped and we're proud of that. We are going to work hard through the select committee process to make changes—[Interruption]ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I can hardly hear.GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: —to this bill to make it fairer as we go through but we have our bottom lines. We're going to make sure that the standards are even fairer the processes are even fairer. That's what New Zealand would expect of the Green Party in Government. Thank you."