I would normally abide by what my colleague said above. We work as a collegial body, and votes should not be released on a regular basis. That said, this particular case is unusual, and I think a response is merited.

I supported the initial security risk declaration. We had evidence that Belschaft had engaged in questionable behaviour, and it was clear to me that further investigation was needed. Once the Security Powers Act was passed, and we had a clear legal authority to continue our investigation, I made a public commitment in this very subforum that we would act without bias and only in the best interests of equal treatment under the law and regional security.

As the days passed, I became strongly concerned that the Committee as a whole was more interested in concluding swiftly with a security threat declaration, rather than properly investigating the situation, and only then making a decision on what our course of action should be. I was strongly and repeatedly opposed to be decision to draft the above statement, insisting that we had a legal duty to further investigate, and to consider any new information that we might have come across.

Our duty is to uphold the security of the region, but not at the expense of due process and always within the constraints of our laws. Maybe they are inconvenient at times, but we have no right to act contrary to them, as the committee did when it decided the investigation conducted prior to the passage of the Security Powers Act was enough to satisfy the legal requirement. That was not fair to ourselves as an institution, to Belschaft as the subject of this investigation, and to the Assembly.

That is why I voted against the statement, and why I continue to oppose the way in which this investigation, or lack thereof, was handled, and believe we should seriously reexamine its validity.

TL;DR I voted against the security threat declaration because I don't believe the Committee conducted a proper investigation, as required by the Security Powers Act.