Bridges SimonHon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Thank you Mr Speaker. New Zealand's a country that has been incredibly blessed in that it hasn't for decades—decades—suffered from extreme warped ideologies that have led to terrorism. But what is true is: in very recent times the last couple of years we have been—euphemistic really to say—unfortunate very unfortunate. We've seen heinous attacks by an extremist in Christchurch and just in recent weeks an awful terrorist attack again fuelled by extreme warped ideology at LynnMall Countdown in West Auckland. And it's a very sad thing something I think most New Zealanders would say is foreign to us—and yet it's not. We've seen it as I say in recent times. And when I think of that most recent attack I'm just personally very thankful to all those who were involved in helping—of course the police themselves but those that were brave and helped bring the man under heel as it were. I think of those who were wounded in his stabbing spree and just repeat what I know all members of this House would think and say—that is that terrorism fuelled by that sort of extremism has no place in New Zealand society or indeed globally. It has no place.With the terrorist in this case that I've been talking about most recently he was under supervision from authorities—I say authorities" because I'm sure it was more than simply police; it was other security authorities as well—it would have been truly significant many millions of dollars' cost to New Zealanders. He wheedled his way through many a court case actually in the courts of New Zealand. I think the Chief Justice put out a synopsis or summary of those cases and again the costs would have been many millions of dollars I've got no doubt from this man.As the justice Minister Kris Faafoi has said—and I acknowledge all he said; I don't agree with everything he did say—one of those cases perhaps the most significant in a precedent sense by Justice Downs was sent to the Attorney-General possibly the justice Minister and others in Government to outline a gap in the law. That gap was really around the planning and preparation of terrorist acts. This bill deals with that gap and I think Andrew Little said at the second reading it's not as a result of that case law; it's already something that the executive was minded to deal with. But nevertheless it does deal with that gap. I asked the Minister at the committee of the whole House stage and he confirmed he believes it deals with it comprehensively.It also deals with certain recommendations from the royal commission on the Christchurch terror attacks. It deals with certain international obligations through UN conventions and the like and there are many many things technically the law does—I want to say many many; it may be several. I listed some of them in earlier contributions so I'm not going to technically go through those various worthy elements of this bill.Suffice to say a couple of things: we support this law. It's the right thing to do in terms of the changes and improvements it makes. Probably—and I don't simply say this in hindsight with what has happened in recent times—the most significant element of it is the creation of precursor offences to terrorism acts and the planning and preparation offense in particular. We spent some time on that in select committee to address the gap that I've already discussed.I just want to finish not politically with a small "p" but I suppose a big "P" I should say but with some small "p" political comments. The first is one the Minister has emphasised and emphasised that I emphasised and that is that this wasn't a rushed law. It's entirely incorrect as some members of the House say that somehow we rushed this up sped this up. We didn't. It went through a thorough select committee process. We heard all submissions. We were in deliberations on this bill in fact eerily really at and around the time of the recent terror attacks.I won't say I can't understand the opposition to this bill. We heard submissions from civil liberties groups and I deeply respect their views that we should cherish and guard our freedoms and our liberties. Liberties for the worst if you like are the price for a civilised society. So in hindsight I don't dis-understand the opposition to this bill but I do say from the parties to my left that do oppose this bill there is an opportunism to it. I don't think it should be around a rushed process or some such. They've got principled objections—well that is one thing. But actually it seems to me technically in terms of process—and we can't say that about a lot of the bills. The other bills that have been through this Parliament tonight are a shambles of a process. But this one has had a good process.National takes terrorism very seriously. We perceive ourselves as a party of security and law and order and that's why we have recently made the Hon Mark Mitchell MP for Whangaparāoa spokesperson in this area—someone with deep expertise and experience in arenas like Afghanistan and Iraq and other places; with a real knowledge about these issues. He would have I know desperately liked to have been here today to talk about this bill. He has a first-hand knowledge of these issues in a way I don't and I suspect really any other member in this Parliament does either. But that creation of his role is a sense with which we as a responsible large party want to do the right thing the responsible thing around security and law and order. And I acknowledge actually we're not the only party in Parliament that does that in Government. The Labour Party has brought this bill to the House.So I don't need to keep going. Sadly terrorism now is a feature of New Zealand. I hope it isn't again but it has been in the last couple of years. This bill fills gaps it improves our legal regime to make future events less likely and that's got to be a good thing. National as the responsible party on these issues wholeheartedly as it has at all stages of this bill supports it."