Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm always thankful to the member who's just resumed his seat Chris Penk because his commitment to intellectual rigour means that he cannot fudge what he actually wants to say and he does not fudge his contributions to debates on bills such as this. His extraordinary attempt to create a problem where none exists means that in fact I have to say with all due respect to him he didn't get there and that's principally because there is no problem. So I know Mr Penk and the Hon Mark Mitchell who spoke before him are concerned that the objective as set out in clause 3 of this bill won't be met—which is about protecting New Zealanders—and of course it will. The difference between I think the members of the National Party at this point in time in their history and the rest of us in Parliament is that the rest of us are not living in fantasyland. So we work on the basis of facts we work on the basis of things that are actually happening and when it comes to legislation like this that is about imposing restrictions on people's liberty in the particular circumstances where there are allegations and real suspicions of terrorism having been committed or supported abroad we do so on the basis of good information generally provided by our intelligence services. I can say this because the nature of the New Zealand democracy and our Government and our Parliament is that actually the intelligence that I have access to as the Minister in charge of our spy agencies is made available to the Leader of the Opposition as well. That means it's made available at least to senior members of the main Opposition party—and it is. So members in that party know exactly what this bill is trying to get to and they know that the structure of the bill is such that it will meet the objectives set out in clause 3 of the bill and I would just invite members for the remainder of the debate on this part and on subsequent parts that we actually stick to the real world not the fantasyland stuff that sometimes creeps into debates of this nature. I just wanted to say that I've heard what the members have said about the objectives of the bill. They are about keeping New Zealanders safe. They are about dealing with the very rare and confined circumstances associated with those who have left this country and who are entitled to return to it who have fought abroad in ideological and philosophical and religious causes and have done so in a way that is antithetical to the interests and values of New Zealand. There is a very small number of people to whom this could and would apply and the bill is drafted to make sure that should any of those people return at any time the rest of New Zealand will be kept safe. No one will arrive unexpectedly and no one arriving back will be a surprise. We know that and members opposite know that and so this bill bears that in mind. This bill has been done in the time frame that it has been done in because the risk of somebody returning has got much greater and it is just a great pity that one of the great parties of this Parliament—and it has been since 1936—thinks that in this day and age with the peculiar circumstances that they find themselves in it's OK to play politics on issues of national security. I think it's a disgrace and it reflects poorly on members opposite. I won't be engaging any further on that. I will answer sensible questions about the content of this bill.