Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill.

💬 SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

Can I also take this opportunity, again, to acknowledge the victims, whānau, and communities affected by the events of 3 September. We and this House continue to send our thoughts and our prayers as they continue their road to recovery. Of course, too, we will never forget the attack in Christchurch on 15 March 2019. As we all know, that attack took 51 lives and affected many more. The impacts of these attacks on the New Zealand community has been immense, and we must do everything we can to try and prevent such events from happening again.

It is clear from the actions that have happened in New Zealand and overseas more recently that the nature of terrorism is changing, and our laws need to change in order to respond to it. Across the world, we’ve seen more lone acts or small groups rather than larger organised terrorist groups, and, as we’ve seen, New Zealand is not immune to these events. This is why the objective of this bill is to strengthen our counter-terrorism laws to better prevent and respond to the threat and risks of terrorism. It provides our enforcement agencies with clear legal authority to disrupt terrorism-related activity, and, hopefully, before it occurs.

Can I acknowledge the Justice Committee, which has reported back on the bill and made some changes. I thank the committee for its diligent and efficient work in consideration of the bill, and everyone who has submitted on the bill at the select committee stage. I understand the committee received 81 submissions. The committee, as I have mentioned, has made several changes to the bill, and some technical changes to improve clarity.

The bill tackles a number of extremely complex issues and, by the very nature of counter-terror laws, consultation on the bill was necessarily limited. Consulting any earlier than strictly necessary could have exposed gaps for exploitation in our counter-terrorism system, which would have created another avenue for national security risk. But I do want to acknowledge that it is crucial the powers in this bill are not used disproportionately against any group of New Zealanders. Once the proposals in the bill were sufficiently developed, the bill was made available for public consultation, and this minimised risk to our national security to the greatest extent possible while allowing for informed submissions to the Justice Committee on specific legislative proposals from anyone who had an interest. It is a challenging balance to ensure the safety of all New Zealanders and to develop the policy and also this legislation.

As I mentioned, the committee recommended changes to the definition of a “terrorist act”. The definition of a “terrorist act” is the cornerstone of our legislation. To be a terrorist attack, a person must intend to cause some level of apprehension in a population. The committee considered whether this level should be intimidation, fear, or terror, and the committee, I understand, unanimously has recommended intimidation. Cabinet agrees with this recommendation from the Justice Committee that intimidation is a more appropriate standard. It is the standard used by the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, and the threshold for meeting the definition of a terrorist act still remains appropriately high because a person still has to meet all three components of a terrorist act—that is, an intention to cause a serious outcome such as death, the purpose of advancing an ideology, and the intention to induce intimidation in a population.

The committee also recommended changes related to new offences of planning or preparation for a terrorist attack, and the committee recommended a change to clarify that it is not an offence to attempt to plan a terrorist act or to conspire or incite another person to do so. The committee also recommended removing the clarification that planning to plan a terrorist act is not an offence, and this was intended to clarify the scope of the offence, but submitters also found it confusing. Its removal will not lead to over-criminalisation by the new planning and preparation offence within the bill.

It is an offence to provide also funds or material support to a terrorist entity within this bill, but the bill as introduced contained an exception for when support does no more than satisfy essential human needs. Submitters during the select committee process, I understand, had concerns that the exception did not allow the provision of legitimate humanitarian support. So to respond to this, the bill clarifies the scope of the funds and support that can be provided.

The committee also recommended including New Zealand’s territorial waters within the scope of the travel offence within the bill, and recommended a change to ensure that terrorist activities in our territorial waters are captured by the new offence of traveling to, from, or via New Zealand intending to commit a terrorist offence.

An important aspect of the bill is balancing the need to counter terrorism with individual rights, and some submitters expressed concern that the bill does not adequately protect human rights and freedoms. I believe the committee considered these concerns and determined that where rights and freedoms are impacted, these limitations are justified and proportionate to the aim.

The committee also carefully considered the concerns raised by submitters about the bill, and these included a lack of consultation on the bill, including from the likes of Māori. The committee considered that the select committee was the appropriate place for that consultation to happen, and given the high threshold to meet the definition of terrorism and requirement to seek the Attorney-General’s consent before prosecutions are taken, the committee thought that there were sufficient safeguards within the bill to uphold the Crown’s obligation under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Submitters also questioned a lack of oversight of the implementation and operation of the proposed legislation, and the need for an independent oversight body will be considered as part of wider counter-terrorism work to respond to the recommendations of the royal commission into the Christchurch attacks. Submitters also commented that the bill would not have prevented the Christchurch terror attack, and that is because the perpetrator had not come to the authority’s attention. The new offences and powers provided by this bill will allow early intervention and may be critical to preventing further attacks.

Sadly, we have been recently reminded that terror can take many forms here in New Zealand as well as overseas, and the actions of the lone attacker in West Auckland on 3 September have reinforced the importance of this legislation and raised questions about whether other parts of our laws should be looked at—dealing with issues such as detention, deportation, for example. The Government has requested further advice on these areas of work because we have to make sure Parliament responds in every way that we can.

The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill will enable us to better prevent and respond to the threat of terrorism, which, as we have, unfortunately, seen recently, is a very real one. I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, thank you to the Minister of Justice for his contribution. This is a bill that the National Party supports. Our members on the Justice Committee, led by the Hon Simon Bridges, have worked very hard to make sure that the bill has a good balance between the rights of those who might be accused and the rights of New Zealanders not to be subject to terrorist attacks.

Until, really, 18 months ago, New Zealand had not seen terrorist attacks, although there is an arguable point that there had been certainly some occasions where terrorist attacks may have been planned. But what we now know is that there are around 300 people who give concern to security agencies around their wish to do damage to New Zealand or New Zealanders or those who are our allies, and they are living in New Zealand. We know that there is a significantly smaller number that give serious concern.

If we need changes to terrorism legislation, it certainly is now. We can be reminded of the fact that there were seven people injured—four stabbed—by the terrorist attacker in New Lynn a few weeks ago. The National Party would like to express our sympathy for those victims who were going about their weekly shopping and suddenly were attacked by someone with a very strong hatred towards, apparently, white people. I would also like to express our sincere thanks to those police officers on the scene, whose swift action was able to prevent this from being an even worse tragedy than it already is.

This person was clearly operating, as far as we know, as a lone wolf. But he is not the only lone wolf out there. After the horrors at the Al Noor Mosque, the Linwood Islamic Centre, and now New Lynn, it is very clear that we need, as a Parliament, to move swiftly to plug the gaps in our counter-terrorism law by passing this bill.

I understand that there is concern—very deeply held and genuinely held concern—that this is, essentially, criminalising people who plan a criminal offence. While we have that already in law when it comes to conspiracies, as in more than one person planning it, the law has not previously criminalised a lone person planning an attack like this. The problem is that now that there is communication via the internet and other means, and social media, it is very important that we recognise that things are not the same as they were 10, 20, or even 30 years ago. Things have changed. In the last 18 months, we’ve had two terror attacks on our shores here in New Zealand and there has not been a terror attack before, so things have definitely changed.

It is important that we support the Government in this move. After we knew of what had happened on 3 September, I contacted the Prime Minister after speaking with my colleagues, who agreed that we should support the Government because our select committee members were happy with the process and the work that had gone into the bill. Not everybody will be, but it is important that we do this. When we were in Government last, we would have loved to have had the sort of support that we are now giving, and that is because we believe very clearly that this is a very real threat to New Zealand, a very real threat to our way of life. We do not need any more instances like this for us to take this seriously. This is a very serious matter.

I have reviewed, obviously, the work of the royal commission into the massacre in Christchurch of 18 months ago. The royal commission was very clear that we need to have a separate counter-terrorism agency. We haven’t heard from the Government as to what progress, if any, has to be made on that. We have agencies involved in intelligence, we have agencies such as Police that are involved in law enforcement, and we have other agencies such as the Department of Corrections who have input into this. But when I come to the terrorist in New Lynn, Samsudeen, it is a question that needs to be asked as to why he had the Crown not opposing his bail, and, in fact, being party to an application to bail for him before this incident happened. So these are questions that I have asked the Prime Minister to hold a public inquiry on. This does not meet the threshold for a royal commission such as the Christchurch massacres, but this does need to have questions asked and answered.

It is also important to note that no legal advice has been provided as to why Samsudeen could not have been deported back to his country of origin. We’ve heard advice from the Prime Minister that Cabinet sought advice and was disappointed to find out that he could not be. But having reviewed the Immigration Act and also the United Nations convention on refugees, it is clear that where there is a threat to national security, someone can be deported back.

The other issue has to be around what is the definition of a threat to national security. This is something that I believe needs to be considered by this House. It is important that New Zealand undertakes our responsibilities to refugee claimants and also to those who seek our assistance because they’re stateless. That was not the situation with this man, who was not stateless. He had an option.

It is very important that our number one job as a Parliament is to protect the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders. In these cases where we are weighing up the ability of the Crown and Crown agencies to protect New Zealanders versus the rights of New Zealanders or people in New Zealand to plan criminal attacks, I will come down, as will the National Party, very clearly on the side of protecting New Zealanders from these sorts of attacks. We cannot be held to ransom by people who have no commitment to our way of life and no understanding that these great freedoms have been fought for. Unfortunately, these people are in this country and are of concern to the intelligence and security agencies and to us, and the police and others must have the ability to deal with them.

So on that note, I have appointed a spokesperson for counter-terrorism. This is the first such appointment that we could find in New Zealand and that we undertake to work towards a specific counter-terrorism agency to work across and to direct in terms of this particular area. It is not something that we can just leave for matters to fall through the gaps, or for one agency to decide that they will pick up the lead on a particular potential terrorist. It is important that some agency, some Minister, is held accountable for the actions or inactions of those agencies, and it is very important that we take this very seriously as a Parliament.

So, today, I am pleased to be able to confirm that the Government does have our support on this issue and that we will proceed with voting for the legislation, but there are still questions that should be answered. As this piece of legislation will not be the only piece of legislation that this House sees on it, it is certainly something that if the Government does not pick up the opportunity to look at and establish a counter-terrorism agency, or does not look at further legislation that might be required, this party—the National Party—will do so. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition, who has just resumed her seat, and acknowledge the support that she has pledged on behalf of the National Party for the passage of this legislation.

Can I just correct the member who has resumed her seat on one or two things. The royal commission of inquiry into the Christchurch mosque attack did not recommend a standalone counter-terrorism agency. It certainly recommended a Minister be given discrete and specific responsibility for counter-terrorism, and it also recommended that a new national security and intelligence agency—one to sit above the operational organisations that sit there at the moment—be established to ensure that there is that strategic leadership, that kind of looking over the horizon to look at the risks and threats, as a source of advice to the Prime Minister and Cabinet and relevant Ministers of the day. I can assure the member and, indeed, the House that that work is under way and is ongoing as we continue the journey to fulfil the recommendations of the royal commission of inquiry into those mosque attacks.

Can I also say too that this legislation started following work commissioned by this Government in its first term—work commissioned in 2018, as the Prime Minister has confirmed in her media statements—and it continued even following the mosque attacks. But the work was not concluded pending the completion by the royal commission of inquiry of its work to make sure that any proposed changes to the legislation, principally the Terrorism Suppression Act, took account of the work of the royal commission of inquiry, and this does that. My colleague the Hon Kris Faafoi introduced the legislation with the benefit of the insights of the royal commission of inquiry’s report and the work that had been done. It was referred to the select committee earlier this year. I know there have been some comments made publicly that somehow this has all been dealt with in haste, and I reassure the House that it has not. It has been done appropriately. I’m thankful for the work that the select committee has done. When I look at the changes that have come back to this House as a consequence of that work, I think that it is good work. They are good, constructive changes that have been made.

As the Leader of the Opposition has acknowledged, and, indeed, the Hon Kris Faafoi, there will be, through the work that has to be done—that is the work that will be done in light of the events of 3 September. This bill was not conceived around the events of 3 September. If anything, this bill goes back to events that happened in Aotearoa New Zealand in the 2000s, and, of course, in 2019, because the reality is that we now know this country is not immune from terrorist activity and the threat of terrorism. We know that precursor events that lead to terrorist activity—namely, preparation and planning—can have evil intent and can be intended to cause harm. We should have a criminal code that captures that activity, and that’s what this legislation seeks to do.

So we’ve had counter-terrorism legislation for nearly 20 years now. It was found to be wanting only a few years after it was enacted and the work has now been done to address the gaps that were identified at that time. Those principal gaps were in preparation activity.

I think it’s also important to remind the House that when we think about planning and preparation of a terrorist act, we are still dependent on the definition of “terrorist act” that is in the Terrorism Suppression Act—that is, the extant definition that is in section 5 of the existing Act—and that definition has three elements to it. First of all, the action that is the subject of the planning and preparation has to be an action intended to cause death, or risk of harm or destruction; secondly, carried out for the purpose of ideological, political, or religious causes; and, thirdly, intended to cause fear in a population. So that is a very high threshold to meet when it comes to considering a charge for a planning and preparation offence when it comes to an act of terrorism. Added to that is the further safeguard that for any prosecution, it has to be approved by the Attorney-General.

I might add too there is a further clarification—extant clarification—under current legislation that makes it very clear that a protest activity, activist activity, does not constitute and cannot constitute an act of terrorism, so there are a number of safeguards already built in. But the reality is we know from our experience in this country now that it is possible for someone motivated for the right reasons, or we might say the wrong reasons—but, in their warped view of the world, they’re motivated for the right reasons—to cause harm and to start making preparatory acts for it. There is the constant juggling act that this House and the State, generally, has towards its citizens of working out where the line between ensuring safety for citizens and ensuring the freedom of expression and action and movement is, as we have to look closely at those who express a will to do harm and prepare for an act to do that, and particularly when motivated for ideological reasons and also particularly when intended to induce intimidation, as the bill now proposes to create. So there are a number of safeguards already built into this, and in the end it is for our agencies, including the police, to make the assessment about threats and where to take appropriate action.

I might add, as the Leader of the Opposition said too, we already have offences on our statute book. They are called the inchoate class of offences. Conspiracy is one of them, attempting to commit an offence is another, aiding and abetting is another. No offence has been committed, but an action has been taken that is intended to cause or encourage others to cause harm, and that is an offence under our Crimes Act right now. So there is nothing unusual about ensuring that our criminal law keeps up with the actions of those who would do harm and captures the level of criminality at the right place, at the right time, to prevent harm being caused, bearing in mind that at least in this case, there are good safeguards around the intended offences.

The other concern that has been expressed, I know, is about the extension of the search and surveillance powers under the Search and Surveillance Act, because this bill amends that piece of legislation. Those powers are, effectively, extended, but, again, there are safeguards in the existing legislation, the Search and Surveillance Act, which say that in order to exercise those search and surveillance powers, a constable has to have reasonable grounds to suspect that a relevant offence is being committed or is about to committed, has to have reasonable grounds to suspect that there is evidential material which the constable wants to get access to, and, thirdly, has to form a reasonable view that if entry is delayed, that material will be destroyed or removed and, therefore, prevent the enforcement of the law.

So, again, those who are concerned about overreaching or overweening powers of the State when it comes to this sort of activity can be assured that there are safeguards in place. In the end, I come back to the reality of the situation that has been illustrated by the events in March 2019 and, now, September of this year that there are those in our community—some who come to our community from abroad—who would cause us harm and who would do so for what we would describe as warped ideological reasons, and who are prepared to take actions and plan to do so. Some of those actions will be very hard to detect, as we have seen. But others, with appropriate exercise of suspicion and inquiry, we can detect, and we need our authorities to be able to take appropriate action at the right time to keep us all safe. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. On 3 September, there was an ISIS-inspired terrorist attack at LynnMall Countdown in West Auckland, and, as we’ve heard from the Hon Judith Collins, several people were badly wounded. As other members have, I want to record my deep thanks to those at the supermarket, who were brave and helped in that situation, and also, of course, the police officers—the men and women in blue—who are so brave and do their job so well. I also record our condolences and thoughts with those who were so badly wounded. I also want to condemn the acts of the perpetrator. They have no place in society, in our country, or, indeed, anywhere. As Andrew Little has just said, they are clearly off the back of a warped, evil ideology.

The perpetrator was, of course, known to authorities and was under 24/7 supervision. We, I think, can just imagine when we hear the number of people involved in those supervisions how incredibly expensive they are for hard-working taxpayers. He was the subject of a number of court cases, and courts had held that the law fell short—there was an ellipsis in the law, if you like—in terms of what was required to protect New Zealanders, particularly in relation to that issue of planning and preparation short of an actual seeing-through, if you like, of a terrorist act, and that brings me to this law. National has unequivocally supported it at first reading and at select committee.

It’s a bill that does quite a number of things. I’m not going to run through them all. It updates the definition of “terrorist act”, and Andrew Little has spoken to those changes. It creates precursor offences, and, as he’s made the point, there are of course offences already in our law generally around attempts, conspiracy, and the like, but here we are creating specific offences criminalising the planning and preparation of a terrorist act, criminalising terrorist weapons and combat training, and criminalising travel to and from or via New Zealand for international terrorism. This law does a host of other things as well, like extending the terrorism finance offence framework to criminalise material support for terrorist activities or organisations, which is very much in keeping with our international obligations: United Nations obligations, conventions, treaties we have signed up to as a nation.

For the purposes of this 3 September attack—the stabbings—the new offence of planning and preparation of a terrorist act addresses the gap that is there in the law. I’ve heard—and I go along with him, largely—what the Hon Andrew Little has said, which is that this law was not really because of this perpetrator. There’s no doubt there’s case law as a result of actions of the earlier perpetrator that was sent by Justice Downs to the Attorney-General and, I think, other Ministers as well. So we are addressing a perceived gap identified by the royal commission of inquiry into the Christchurch terror attacks and also by the High Court, and that’s a good thing, a significant thing that we do.

In relation to the details of the provisions, I just want to delve into one aspect of the changes to “terrorist act”, which, of course, have to be proven as part of this new precursor offence of planning and preparation, and that’s the debate that was had in wider society and media articles and also in the select committee. It was a very civil debate, I might say. There was not strong fundamental disagreement on these points about whether, in the offence, we were to use in terms of the intent that a perpetrator would have on the population, “terror”—coming down a bit—“fear”, or even, at a lower threshold, “intimidation” as the operative word, as the intention as part of that act that needs to be proven.

In the end, I think, fundamentally and unanimously, the committee agreed with “intimidate”, and I would say, as we say in the report there, the case law is clear on that. So it’s a particular word that is well understood in our courts, and internationally that’s accepted. The Australias, the Canadas, and, I think, the United Kingdoms of this world—it’s the same in their terrorist laws. To those who oppose that, I would simply say—again, as I think we say in the committee report, or at least the majority of the report—that that’s hardly Draconian. It’s still a high threshold. I think Andrew Little made the point that the Crown still has to prove intent to cause death or serious harm in, the advancement of an ideological, a political, or a religious cause as well as that intent if this law passes—which I’m sure it will—to intimidate a population. It’s not as if it’s an easy thing for the Crown to prove.

Just in the remaining time, I don’t want to be party political, fundamentally, about this. I think it is right on something of this significance—the protection of New Zealanders—that we don’t dredge up the past and say, “Well, they did this.” or “They didn’t do that.”, or “We did this.” and “We didn’t do that.” But I would make a couple of points that I think are important. The first is to commend the leadership of Judith Collins and Mark Mitchell. On this side of the House, there is new spokesperson for counter-terrorism in Mark Mitchell, and I’m sure in a different world where we didn’t have level 4 going to level 3 in Auckland, Mark Mitchell would have given a fine contribution to this debate. He has real experience and expertise on the ground internationally on these issues, and a credibility, I think, that it’s hard to fault.

The second point I’d want to make is one which joins with the Government—the Labour Party—on, and that is to make this point: the law was not rushed. There is no rushing here in relation to this bill. It was a normal, thorough process that we saw in Parliament and select committee. So I just say, knowing that my friends in ACT and the Greens have put in minority views, when they do say that “The ACT Party opposes the passage of this bill due to the process adopted by the Government to progress it.”, it’s simply wrong to say that there was anything done here to rush it. Fundamentally, we had agreed and gone through the submissions and the changes that we thought should happen on this bill at or before the 3 September terrorist attack.

National is the party, as the Hon Judith Collins has said, that actually does see for itself a role in being responsible on these issues, and on the right side of protecting New Zealanders from terrorism, whether that is from outside, out of country, or indeed, sometimes, tragically, enemies are within. Consistently, in the last couple of years, as we’ve seen significant terror tragedies in this country—of course, the March 15th terror attacks in Christchurch; awful events that have changed this country, but then also this significant 3 September attack—we have been on the right side. We’ve supported sensible rule-making and lawmaking, and we do so, again, today in relation to this Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill.

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.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Like the other members around the House, I would also like to acknowledge the whānau up in New Lynn, the impacted whānau, and acknowledge that it’s been a tough time for them—tough time out West; the lockdowns and then to have that tragedy happen for them as well. So the Greens, our hearts go out to them as well—acknowledging the impact on close family, and also the work that many of the community members of the perpetrator who tried to wrap support around the individual to try to deescalate him from his extremist beliefs, and making sure that we also wrap support around that community as well.

Also, I acknowledge that this bill passes within the context of what happened on March 15 in 2019. And again, thoughts to the whānau—our Muslim whānau—down there in Ōtautahi and the rebuilding and the reconnecting that they have had to do and the journey that has been tremendously heavy for them and also for all of us at this particular time. From that, we saw the many recommendations from the royal commission as well. There’s a number of them—there’s round about 44—and to really actually give those recommendations the space that they need, that really takes time. So a lot of the opposition from our perspective comes from that lack of time—what appears to be the haste in this bill. I’m glad that some members around the House are comfortable with the speed of that, but that’s not the same for some of our community—some of the communities that I’m connected with.

I reflect on, I think, in the last sitting, or maybe the one before that, when we passed legislation to speed up the reviewing of the GCSB and the SIS because that was part of the recommendations for the royal commission report, where, as part of due process, it was really important that we dealt with what happened there, in a timely fashion. But it seems to me that we are, in this case, putting the cart before the horse. That’s because there are many questions that the SIS and the GCSB must answer—must answer. One of those questions from me is around the allocation of resources. We hear it all the time from our communities that the authorities have learnt their lessons and now they’re going to be focusing on right-wing extremism and, in particular, the rising tide of white supremacy, but we need to actually see that that is actually happening. We have to see it in terms of the numbers, the amount of time that they are actually spending specifically on those types of individuals and on those groups as well, because often what you find is that you have the talk and then you find out, as happened on March 15, that they were looking completely in the wrong direction—they were looking in the wrong direction. Instead of looking for white supremacists, they were watching our Muslim whānau and they were completely distracted. So in order for us to really get a sense of moving forward with this, we need to actually have some answers to those questions.

I’d like to acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee as well. It was a very heavy kaupapa. I know on a lot of these issues there is consensus. We all want the safety for our families. We all want the safety of our communities. We all want what’s best for all of us living here in this whenua as well. But I am concerned about the balance—the balancing of keeping people safe while also making sure that we uphold human rights. And in order to get that balance, that balance takes time. That balance takes time in order to make sure that we don’t, by mistake, target the wrong audiences and target the wrong communities

We’ve seen this before. If people remember back in 2001, we had the war on terror, the towers went down, and so of course New Zealand jumped on board and passed the 2002 Terrorism Suppression Act. At that time many Māori communities, social justice groups, and environmental groups said, “Hey, if these people don’t find terrorists, they will come looking for us.” and they did. In 2007, we had the Urewera raids, where they raided our whānau in the Ureweras and Ruātoki and across the country as well. They also raided social justice activists and environmental activists as well, and that was because we had not considered the implications of taking something that’s happening internationally in the national context and in the domestic context. And in order to do that, you actually really need to take the communities with you. It’s one thing to listen to them, but it’s another thing to actually walk that journey with them. So I think it’s also really important that we actually do that, and I don’t think that’s happening in this particular case.

Secondly, the new planning or preparation offence has been characterised by some experts as thought crimes—difficult to define in practice or defend against in legal proceedings. The warrantless search and seizure powers that sit with this offence make the risks for human rights abuses even more significant—again, another call for more time. And I do understand that sometimes things are really, really urgent and we’ve got to get things moving and so on and so forth, but if there is some imminent threat, well then there’s a good excuse for us to get to move this thing forward, but if there isn’t, then it’s important that we take our time and get that balance right—make sure that we are not too heavy in one area and not at all doing what we should be doing in another particular area, and make sure that we have all the educational stuff that we need to be wrapped around, which was recommended within the royal commission report as well; doing that, and making sure that we actually hit the marks appropriately.

In terms of one of the suggestions that the erosion of rights is justifiable because of the harm terrorism causes and the public interest in safety, we would like to reiterate the concerns of many submitters that the erosion of these rights affect all of us. We said that counter-terrorism legislation must include adequate human rights protections. Without these, the broad powers this bill confers on agencies may lead to disproportionate surveillance and criminalisation of our communities. So it is in terms of the way that this could potentially undermine social cohesion, potentially leading to unintended consequences—that is the reason why we cannot support this bill. Thank you.

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.

Kia ora, e te Mana Whakawā. Thank you—and a pleasure to rise and speak on this bill. I really want to make a brief contribution, making two points. The first point is that, obviously, the use of the powers in this bill are very much a matter of last resort, and our first resort should always be to strengthen our communities and to make sure that we have an inclusive community which makes extremism—which pushes it out and really strangles and suffocates those thoughts that can lead to the horrific attacks that we’ve seen here in New Zealand in recent times. And in that, I would commend the work done by the Christchurch Invitation, talking about reconnecting, spreading peace, and extending hospitality amongst others.

The second point I’d make is really about just one provision of the bill, and it is an unusual provision. It is the planning and preparation offence. As Andrew Little noted, this goes further than the traditional inchoate offences under the criminal law, such as conspiracy and attempt, in that it prohibits something which isn’t just a thwarted attempt but merely contemplating. But I do want to make it clear that the select committee has done a good job in making it clear that sort of planning to plan is not making a plan; that planning is, in fact, a systemised putting into place a series of steps by which to operationalise a terrorist act. It’s something much more than simply fantasising or dreaming about doing something evil. It is actually taking the first step in operationalising it. So whilst I accept that some parties—the Green Party has concerns around thought crimes, about making thinking about something a crime; I don’t think that that’s the case here. This is an offence which prohibits taking the very first steps, putting in a plan to operationalise a terrorist act, and for that reason, I think the balance between human rights and protecting the public has been struck correctly here. I commend the bill to the House.

I understand this is a split call. I call the Hon Gerry Brownlee—five minutes.

I think the final comment made by the member Duncan Webb that this bill does, in fact, strike the appropriate balance between, you could say, human rights but also the right—I’ll take my mask off; sorry, I was getting a bit carried away there—to go about your business freely in our society, and the restraint that has to be on people preventing others from behaving in that very lawful fashion. Everyone got a little bit of a surprise, to say the least, with that supermarket attack at just how easily some of these things can be done. Here you had someone who was on the New Zealand watch list, who was being very closely surveilled by the New Zealand Police, and there was concern about some of what he had been, effectively, planning but no capacity to restrain him under the law. So this particular change, while some might say it can affect the general freedom of New Zealanders to do what they want, to express what they want, to say things without any particular meaning, I think does go right to the heart of the fact that if there is a plan to materially affect the lives of people through the sort of violence that we saw at that New Lynn supermarket, then there should be capacity to restrain people like that. And we can get all concerned about civil liberties, etc., but we live in a world where there are, these days, far too many people using those freedoms to push agendas that are totally anti-freedom.

So the National Party does support this. We think it’s a good idea to change the definition of “terror” to “intimidate”, in some circumstances. There will be many cases where people have suffered through intimidation where there is no actual law broken, but, in fact, their lives are very much constrained by that threat. The other aspect is around the coercion side of it, and whether it is illegal to coerce someone into a violent act. Well, this makes it very clear that it is. I think the Justice Committee have taken the time to hear all of those 82 submissions and to take the concerns that were laid out in those submissions, and the supports that were in there as well, and make recommendations to the House that see the bill back in its current form, and, as it’s presented to the House, we are of a single mind that it should be progressed into law as soon as possible.

I call Greg O’Connor—five minutes.

As someone who had to work with the law a lot in life, often by the time legislation arrived, you thought, “How the heck did this happen? How was it watered down so much? How was it so weak?”, and often it was because there was no context. We should be very lucky, and those that come after us should be very thankful, that we’re able to pursue this legislation now even though it was ready to go before what happened in West Auckland happened, because we have the context. We don’t have to wonder what might happen; we know. We’ve had two outrageous terrorist attacks this year, one of them where the offender was unknown, a failure of the Australian authorities, and one where everything was known; and the one thing that did come out of it was our law wasn’t adequate. So this legislation, purely by luck, is actually right at the right time, the right place, and it will not be watered down.

I’m confident, looking at it, that it will be actually a workable piece of legislation. I see it’s focused on people who are worried about what might happen. Well, think about this: to actually surveil someone, you’ve actually got to have a warrant. You’ve got to go back every 28 days. You’ll have to go back to a High Court judge to get a warrant. Well, as the evidence builds up, at some stage that judge is going to have to decide will he issue another warrant or are we close enough to the offence that actually he’s not going, or she’s not going, to actually issue another warrant: “You need to act, Mr Police Officer, or Mr Agency.” And that may not necessarily be as theoretical a situation as we might say. So I have no hesitation in recommending this legislation.

Also, many people have talked to what happened in that supermarket in West Auckland. Actually, let’s just think how well our agencies operated to be on that spot, how much had to go right, as Mr Brownlee has just pointed out, for those agencies to be there, and how easy it was for that offender, in the very limited time allowed him, to carry out those six stabbings that he did. So, very good work by the agencies, very good piece of legislation, and I think New Zealanders can be assured that, because of the context in which it is going through, it will be a pragmatic, workable piece of legislation, which is more than can be said for much legislation that goes through this House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

💬 Harete Hipango: Mr Speaker?

It’s a Labour Party call, and I’m not sure if the member down there is seeking one or not. Is he?

💬 Ibrahim Omer: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

You’ve got to seek the call.

💬 Ibrahim Omer: Thank you.

Yep—Ibrahim Omer.

Salaam alaikum, Mr Speaker. The incident on 3 September and, before that, 15 March reminds us to act. It reminds us to get our act together, to do something about our legislation, to fill in the holes and the gaps that exist in our legislation.

Can I first say something about the 15 March perpetrator and also the LynnMall attack stabber. They both were lone wolves, and they both idolised and were inspired by entities and individuals whose whole purpose is to kill people, and those entities are ISIS and also Anders Breivik, who killed dozens of young people in Norway. Most importantly to me, they both betrayed the people—the people of New Zealand—who welcomed them with open arms.

On the back of these two evil acts, gaps in our laws and legislation must be addressed, and changes are needed. These changes are preparation for a terror act, weapons training or combat training for terror purposes, international travel for terrorist purposes. Unless we address these issues and these gaps, the two incidents won’t be the last. In saying this, we’ve got people who expressed concerns throughout the select committee process, and we acknowledge those concerns. The last thing we want to see is human rights watered down because of this bill. But this bill doesn’t do that.

This bill has been overseen by the Ministry of Justice and other agencies, including Crown Law, and the select committee process. There was enough scrutiny by the public on it. We have to get things right. We’ve got to have a balanced approach between civil rights and also protecting our country from terror actors. So this bill went through enough scrutiny, and I personally have no concerns whatsoever that this is going to erode human rights. While this legislation alone might not stop future attacks, combined with other things, it will keep our country safe. We will allow our agencies to do their job in full capacity.

I’d like to thank the work that the select committee has done, from across all the political parties, and the members of the public that submitted to this bill—those who supported and those who opposed. Today, with this bill passing soon, our country will be safer and our people very assured, feeling that there is a law that is going to protect them, a law that’s effective, and, combined with other things, there is no doubt it’s going to keep us safe. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora. Thank you. I take this call for the second reading of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill, and I do so with a sombre note, and first and foremost acknowledge the victims of recent incidents that have struck at the heart of our country, and those recent victims from the incident of the LynnMall attack on Friday, 3 September 2021. Then, of course, our minds turn to Linwood, the Al Noor Mosque, and the mosques in Christchurch on 15 March 2019.

Also, Mr Speaker—you will be aware of this, coming from Whanganui—we had an event, an incident, in Whanganui where one woman was killed as the result of a knife slashing attack, and five others, members of her family, were injured. That wasn’t deemed a terrorist attack as such, but it struck terror at the heart of our community, as these recent events have at the heart of our nation. So this Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill is timely, despite some of the submissions, the contributions that have been made in the House today, requiring further care and consideration and more time to do so. I think the majority view, as well, was espoused in the House this afternoon, that due care, consideration, and time is given, and it is more than timely for this bill to be passed into law, after that careful consideration.

Those of us gathered in the House well know what a second reading is about. I’m always conscious of the people, the members of the public who may be listening, tuned into this, and so I’ll just express that the second reading of this bill is after the first reading puts the bill to the select committee, where there’s been careful scrutiny and due consideration. Accordingly, I acknowledge the members of the select committee who gave service at that time. However, importantly, the officials, who have sat and listened to the full extent of the submissions, and there were, in total—the Justice Committee received and considered 81 submissions and heard evidence from 22 submitters. So the select committee was ably assisted by officials from the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Office of the Clerk providing advice on the bill’s legislative quality, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office assisted with the legal drafting.

I sat on the Justice Committee up until 31 August 2021, and that date, again, coincides with another event, where the New Zealand Government sent a rescue deployment mission of our New Zealand Defence Force to Afghanistan. So the timing of dates and referencing the timeliness—we’re cognisant also that there was a gathering on the parliamentary grounds yesterday of the interpreters from Afghanistan, having given service, and this will correlate to counter-terrorism, and this bill before the House is to address that in the finer detail.

I’ve talked about two particular instances or events that have really been the impetus for the speed of this, but not compromising the quality of this legislation and the bill. So it’s well known that there has been a commission of inquiry, and Minister Little, who is the Minister responsible for leading that commission of inquiry, made reference to the Leader of the Opposition getting it wrong in terms of a specialist counter-terrorism agency and ministerial appointment being set up. I think that’s just debating the semantics.

I have a copy of the inquiry, which was triggered as a result of the 15 March terrorist attack, 2019—that is in Christchurch. That inquiry commenced on 10 April 2019, and it concluded with a report presented to the Governor-General on 26 November 2020. Significantly, the recommendation in that report—and that was recommendation one—was to ensure a Minister is given responsibility and accountability to lead and coordinate the counter-terrorism effort. This bill doesn’t specifically address that. However, it is going to be the precursor, anticipating that that recommendation will be followed through.

The second recommendation, which the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Judith Collins, made mention of, was to establish a new national security agency. Minister Little indicated that that would be a national intelligence and security agency. So it’s very important that the agencies are implemented so that the tools of the legislation may be applied.

I’m moving on now to just addressing some of the detail around what’s been reported back to the House by the Justice Committee. Of course, it states that this Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill is an omnibus bill. Some would consider that it’s also an ominous bill in the sense that there have been these ominous events in the history of our nation recently, triggering this to occur. The bill’s aim is to improve New Zealand’s counter-terrorism legislation to enable Government—and I’ve talked about the enabling tools with a Minister being appointed and a specialist national security agency being set up—to better prevent and respond to terrorism and associated activities.

The bill would create new offences to criminalise travel to, from, or via New Zealand with the intention to carry out a terrorist act. It would also criminalise planning or preparation for a terrorist act—and we’ve heard members in the House this afternoon speak to the detail of that—and then further criminalise weapons training or combat training for terrorist purposes.

We’ve heard contributions talking about the specifics and getting into the detail of what a terrorist act is, and so, of course, the Justice Committee, after hearing advice and also contemplating many submissions that were made before them in person, would be to amend the definition of what a terrorist act is by changing some of the purpose and intention elements. That gets to the legal construction of the action or the omission in itself.

We’ll hear further contributions at the third reading also. It’s important, however, to give feedback from the commentary of the Justice Committee report, which is proposing amendments. Those amendments total seven clauses specifically, and that’s detailed in the report. I invite members of the public who are listening in to this to go to the Parliamentary Service’s website, and you will be able to obtain a copy of the report and also the details of the bill. However, the contribution this afternoon is to say that the National Party recognises the significance and the importance of this bill, and has, with our submissions and contributions at the select committee stage, supported that, been cognisant of contributions from various interested parties, including legal experts, counter-terrorism experts, humanitarian experts, and those other people and persons concerned about the shaping of this legislation, how it impacts on the shaping and the protection and security of our nation.

In my opening, I made mention, as is appropriate, to the victims of these incidents that have struck at the heart and the security of our nation in recent times. In closing, I wish to acknowledge those persons and personnel who give service to the protection and the security of our nation and our peoples. They often go hidden and unknown, as is the nature of the security and counter-terrorism work that they do. They are a special force, and they are an elite group, and it is appropriate that they too are acknowledged for the service that they give in putting themselves on the front line often indiscreetly, often indiscriminately, but trained with a special force elite skillset that is required to be able to implement such legislation as is being proposed and put to the House this afternoon. I stand in support of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill on behalf of the National Party.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am standing in support of this bill, as the final speaker in this round on the second reading of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill. For those people that are listening, know that this has been carefully considered. There have been a lot of organisations, a lot of individuals, putting their effort into making this the best possible legislation that we can to protect New Zealanders. As we’ve seen from the last couple of years, we need to make sure that we’ve got laws that are fit for that purpose—the terrorist killings in Christchurch, those affected on 3 September in West Auckland, to name just a few.

But, without getting too much into the detail of this bill, can I thank all of those people that came forward in their submissions to the committee to ask really pertinent questions about where this legislation was going to leave us as a country. Questions came through such as “Would the changes have prevented the Auckland terrorist attack?” Well, we can’t be absolutely certain about that, but the amendments in this bill—particularly the planning or preparation offence—would be a valuable tool in the Police’s resources to make sure that we’re combatting any potential terror attack or terror offence. It would enable police to be able to disrupt those terrorist activities, particularly during the planning stages, for any kind of future terrorist attack, and also to prevent escalation to a full-blown terror attack here in Aotearoa. “Will the changes make it easier to stop those terrorists?” Yes. As I’ve said, we have, through this legislation, made sure that we’ve widened that range of terrorist activities and potential terrorist threats based on what we know, the best information that we’ve got. “Why are these changes being introduced?” Well, it’s really important that we can respond to the full range of terrorist activities seen today both here in Aotearoa but also overseas as well. It responds to the increasing threat from small groups or lone actors—or lone wolves, as some have called them—as opposed to focusing on large, organised terrorist groups.

There have been some changes made through the drafting of this bill, and, again, I thank all of those people that have submitted—on both sides of the fence, actually. But one of the key considerations kept coming through again about the impact that these changes would have on Māori. Can I say that committee members were absolutely careful to consider that any new or expanded offences would not apply disproportionately to Māori. There’s an overrepresentation of Māori in our justice system, and the bill shouldn’t exacerbate that issue. It was also important to highlight that counter-terrorism laws would help protect vulnerable communities—any vulnerable communities—who may be the target of terrorist activities. So you’ve heard a lot from various speakers this afternoon, so I’ll be another one to add my support, and I commend this to the House.