Garcia Paulo; Dyson RuthPAULO GARCIA (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'd just like to comment in starting out on my contribution that when emotive words like Guantanamo" and "children" are used in a debate such as this it is quite emotion-stirring. But I think the word "children" as used by the member Golriz Ghahraman seems to apply to my children or anyone's children in this House but not to radicalised youth which is what we are talking about in this terrorism suppression bill. The object of both sides—of everyone in this House—is to protect New Zealanders and that is the starting point of all of this debate. Whatever has happened in the past in the negotiations or the process the National Party only seeks to make a bill—this bill once it is passed and it will pass—stronger. There are points that without doubt a reasonable mind would agree that there are portions that need to be strengthened particularly again starting with the age of terrorists.Radicalised youth are all over the world and it is common knowledge. We're not talking about children; we are talking about radicalised youth. They may be younger than 18 years old hence the proposal of National to include children aged 14 to 18. But in that context again it is quite possible that once a youth or a person is radicalised the possibility of rehabilitation is indeed unlikely or very small hence the proposal of National for control orders to be renewed over time. Recognising that young people may be subject to control orders National also proposed that if there are guardians of the young person they be immediately notified and that the control order only be allowed to last for six months and be renewed if necessary and justified through the process.National also wanted control orders to be able to be renewed beyond the six-year limit—of course reviewed every two years and justified as necessary—and if a control order is to expire National proposed that the registrar of the High Court ensures that the Police Commissioner is notified at least two months before the expiry of an expiring control order. This obviously is just aimed at allowing for the control order to be renewed by application—again requiring justification each time so it can be unjustified and stopped at any point in that renewal process. Again it has to be justified as necessary. But what we have been asking for only is the opportunity for these to be extended by under six years as evidenced by recent occurrences around the world where people have been under a control order or under detention for over six years and have come out and have caused harm.Detention on arrival: yes the bill presumes that the person who arrives who has been engaged in activities related to terrorism will have been identified and known. However it is quite impossible—and it's actually reasonable to assume that no one country in the world will be able to identify every single person who has been out there and is returning and may cause harm. So the four-hour detention period for when a person may have presented as appearing to be a threat—a longer period than that should be allowed so that control orders can be applied for again as necessary and again subject to justification that these be issued and that that person be put into that process of surveillance and it be ensured that he will not cause harm. Again all of these proposed amendments by National have been voted down.For me as a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and having sat through the submissions I just believe in going through the process—that these are proposed amendments that can only strengthen the bill and not for any other reason. For this reason I can stand and say that the National Party cannot support the bill because of these points that have not been able to be strengthened. Thank you Madam Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The next call is a split call. I call Kieran McAnulty."