Carter DavidRt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Thank you Mr Speaker and welcome to the Chair at 10 to 6 on Thursday. Can I just say that I'm actually saddened to be taking a call in this debate because I have a great respect for the democracy of this country. I have a great respect for this House and I have a great respect for the normal bipartisan approach to national security so it has given me no pleasure to have watched this debate over the last couple of hours and to have to state that I too will be voting against this legislation. I do that for a number of reasons which I now intend to outline.The first point I make is that this legislation is clearly rushed legislation and generally speaking rushed legislation is bad legislation. We can all surmise why it happens to be on the Order Paper today and I suspect it's because of the recent developments in Turkey and in Syria whereby Turkey has chosen to go into Northern Syria and that's the reason it's before us today. But the issue of these returning terrorists or jihadis has actually been an issue confronting Government for quite some period of time and I happen to know this region reasonably well.I was asked by the Inter-Parliamentary Union about three months ago to travel to Turkey where principally we were investigating human rights abuses that were experienced by elected representatives within the Turkish Parliament. Whilst there we travelled from Ankara down to a city called Diyarbakır. From memory it was about 100 kilometres north of the border and you could just sense the different security prevailing in Ankara versus Diyarbakır. Armoured vehicles were around the streets all the time and whilst I think we were particularly safe we were able to meet a number of people who told us of the Kurds coming across the border from Northern Syria and recruiting adults yes but children. We met the mothers and fathers of children as young as 12 who either voluntarily had been radicalised and taken across the border into Syria by the Kurds or in some cases had been kidnapped and these people were then brainwashed to come back and act as terrorists within Turkey.Now I listened to the debate earlier and it was acknowledged by the Hon Amy Adams and the Hon Michael Woodhouse that the Leader of the Opposition is in the special position of sitting on the Intelligence and Security Committee and therefore is well aware of some of the exposure of previous New Zealanders returning after being radicalised and returning to this country as terrorists. I've never sat on that committee. I've sat on most committees in this Parliament; I've never been there so I don't know the numbers that are involved. But we all know of one particular person Mark Taylor the Bumbling Jihadi" who has received a lot of publicity and because of the recent situation with Turkey invading Syria is probably now free from a Syrian jail and could possibly return to New Zealand. Therefore we have this legislation now before the House but sadly the process by which it has got here has been nothing short of shambolic.Now I listened to the Hon Andrew Little in his first contribution saying that this is a matter of national security. If it's a matter of national security it should be before this House as a bipartisan issue. Why isn't it? Mr Little it's because of your arrogance and it's because of your belligerence. We all know that coalition Government is difficult—it's a matter of numbers—but as the Minister in charge of this legislation he should have had his numbers ready before he put the bill into this House and he didn't because the Greens said they wouldn't support it. So then he came to National and National asked for half a dozen changes which we think are rational and could have been incorporated. Mr Little wouldn't accept those changes so he went back to the Greens. Whilst we don't know the full details we can only surmise that he now has the Greens' support to get this through the House because it has been weakened because this legislation is now weaker than even Mr Little wanted in the first place. So I think it is here before the House sadly because a dirty deal has been done.Then we have the sad situation where we've been told as the legislation is introduced into the House that it's going to be rushed through with a report back from the select committee of 3 December. Why does it have to be rushed? Why can't it go to the select committee and let people have an opportunity to really say their point of view on this legislation?Why didn't Mr Little agree to some of the demands—particularly the age one? Why don't we have a look at Australia which faces very similar security concerns to New Zealand and see what they've done? Has Mr Little has any member of the Green Party and has any New Zealand First member read the recent United Nations report entitled Tackling Terrorists' Exploitation of Youth? Does any other member of the Government know that 12 percent of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) fighters are less than 18 years of age?Why does this Government think that a Mark Taylor can come back after fighting for ISIS being jailed in a Syrian prison and being released now simply because the Turks have invaded that area—that that man can come back—and suddenly be rewired in six years? Why again doesn't Mr Little look at the Australian legislation which has but one term for that type of returning jihadi and that is an unlimited period of time?Why did the Green Party claim when the legislation was originally promoted by Mr Little that it breached the human rights of Mark Taylor? Well I ask the Green Party: why are Mark Taylor's human rights greater than my human rights? Why are Mark Taylor's human rights greater than the 51 people that were massacred on 15 March in Christchurch? The Greens have no answer to that.While we've listened to this debate can I say the most disappointing—it's worse than that; the most disgraceful—contribution was from the New Zealand First member Mark Patterson. He stood and within 20 seconds sat down saying he supported the legislation.Can I just say to Golriz Ghahraman I've just read the story of a bombing in the Nigerian city of Maiduguri—a bomb that went off when two persons came into a city square wearing bombs—suicide bombs. What age were those two people? They were two girls aged 12. That's what we're facing here. We're facing a situation where this legislation won't fit the purpose.If the Hon Andrew Little had only been prepared to be reasonable in negotiation reasonable in discussion we could have stuck to the long-held tradition of this Parliament whereby national security is a bipartisan concern and a bipartisan solution. It gives me absolutely no pleasure to be in this House this afternoon saying that National will not vote for this legislation and I don't think the fault with that lies with the National Party at all."