After the hearing, she wouldn't say how much the SIS's counter-terrorism efforts had shifted towards white identity threats, nor would she say whether there were any such threats on the terrorism watchlist.
They had previously been completely absent from the watchlist.
Kitteridge also wouldn't be drawn on whether the SIS would have caught an alleged threat on the Christchurch mosques earlier this month without a tip-off by members of the public, who alerted authorities after seeing messages on 4Chan.
The events raised questions about whether the SIS was monitoring 4Chan, which is commonly used by white supremacists.
"NZSIS is not always visible. Where we are and where we are not, I can't talk about that," Kitteridge said.
"Everybody has a role to play in national security. Just as we don't expect police to stand on every corner and prevent every crime, we and the police stand together and say to the public: 'If you see something of concern, you should say something.'"
Minister for the SIS and GCSB Andrew Little defended Kitteridge's reticence, saying the agencies didn't want to tip off anyone who might be under surveillance.
"I'm satisfied the agencies are across all threats of terrorism in New Zealand," Little said.
Kitteridge said the agency walked a fine line in trying to keep Kiwis safe while also upholding human rights and the right to privacy.
She said greater use of data mining - which is suggested in the SIS's report following the March 15 attacks - would be discussed when the law is reviewed in light of the Royal Commission's findings, which the Government has not prioritised.
The SIS was focused on the "sharp end" of violent extremism and not hate speech, though Kitteridge acknowledged the fuzzy boundaries between them.
"Our only legitimate investigative concern can be: 'Is this person indicating mobilisation to violence to commit an ideologically motivated attack?'"
Green MP Golriz Ghahraman, who attended the committee hearing as a member of the public, said the agencies had been looking in the wrong places in "a race-based way", and was encouraged by the shift towards white identity threats.
She said she was concerned that the SIS wasn't monitoring hate speech, which she defined as speech that incited harm against a community.
"I was surprised to hear they didn't have a focus on hate speech. They could just include hate speech in what they monitor. Of course we want them to do that in a proportionate way so it's not mass surveillance."
