Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I rise this evening to speak on the second reading of the Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill. I wasn't fortunate enough to have been on the Justice Committee that considered this but I have taken a look at the report and I see there's some good members on that committee who I'm sure would have considered this carefully and I thank them for the work they have done on it. I note that they received written submissions from 210 interested groups and individuals and heard oral evidence from four submitters via video conference also receiving advice from the Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Clerk provided advice on the bill's legislative quality and the Parliamentary Counsel Office assisted with legal drafting. So thank you to all of them for the work that has gone into trying to ensure this is a good bill that will stand the test of time. This bill clarifies and strengthens New Zealand's counter-terrorism legislation to better prevent and respond to terrorism and associated activities. The amendments in the bill implement a single broad policy by amending the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 and the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Act 2019. National will be supporting this bill continuing through the second reading and onwards—after being consulted by the Government—and does acknowledge that the Government consulted the National Party on this important national security matter. It's important that there's cross-party consensus on matters of national security and we do thank the Government for taking on board our feedback.The bill tightens a gap in the law that does not explicitly outline the circumstances of a designated person imprisoned in New Zealand and makes clear what they are. It also broadens the definition of offence and eligibility to be subject to a control order and that is a sensible change. It is important that the State uses the tools at its disposal to respond to known terrorist threats with appropriate oversight that protects our civil liberties and we believe that this bill does strike the right balance. It is important the State is able to proactively mitigate and manage terrorist risks before they occur which this bill endeavours to help with that objective. Unfortunately New Zealand is no longer immune to threats of terrorism as we may have once considered that we were; unfortunately the New Lynn attack and the Christchurch attack have made that clear. Therefore it is important that the framework that we have to respond to terrorism responds proportionately to that level of risk. I see that the select committee recommended that there is a clarification of the meaning of imprisonment" with the replacement section 35G(1) inserted by clause 8 defining the term "imprisoned" for an individual designated as a terrorist entity. That would include young people aged 14 to 17 serving a sentence of imprisonment in an Oranga Tamariki residence or in a prison. And the select committee believe that the definition of "imprisonment" in the bill should apply only to young people in the custody of the Department of Corrections or the police. The select committee noted that the provisions of the bill were intended to apply to individuals whose actions are sufficiently limited by imprisonment that it would be difficult for the Prime Minister to gauge whether their designation remained necessary to prevent further terrorist acts and noted that youth in Oranga Tamariki residences have greater access to unmonitored phone calls letters and visits and greater scope to visit whānau outside than those in a prison. So therefore the select committee was of the view that the Oranga Tamariki youth justice residences were not so restricted as to pose challenges for the Prime Minister in considering whether an individual's designation remained necessary to prevent further terrorist acts and therefore made some recommendations on amendments that would make it clear that young people are only covered by the provisions of this bill if they are detained by the Department of Corrections or the police. There was some clarification as well around the electronic monitoring requirements. Schedule 2 of the bill would insert a new Schedule 3 into the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Act and Schedule 3 would establish provisions relating to the electronic monitoring of an individual who has had a requirement for electronic monitoring imposed as a condition of a control order. That is certainly a sensible piece of this bill as I certainly have seen in my previous career the value of electronic monitoring. It unfortunately doesn't always work it is subject to the individual complying with those provisions but it certainly alerts the authorities very quickly when that person doesn't comply. So with that I recommend this bill to the House."