Bridges SimonHon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Thank you Madam Speaker. On 3 September there was an ISIS-inspired terrorist attack at LynnMall Countdown in West Auckland and as we've heard from the Hon Judith Collins several people were badly wounded. As other members have I want to record my deep thanks to those at the supermarket who were brave and helped in that situation and also of course the police officers—the men and women in blue—who are so brave and do their job so well. I also record our condolences and thoughts with those who were so badly wounded. I also want to condemn the acts of the perpetrator. They have no place in society in our country or indeed anywhere. As Andrew Little has just said they are clearly off the back of a warped evil ideology.The perpetrator was of course known to authorities and was under 24/7 supervision. We I think can just imagine when we hear the number of people involved in those supervisions how incredibly expensive they are for hard-working taxpayers. He was the subject of a number of court cases and courts had held that the law fell short—there was an ellipsis in the law if you like—in terms of what was required to protect New Zealanders particularly in relation to that issue of planning and preparation short of an actual seeing-through if you like of a terrorist act and that brings me to this law. National has unequivocally supported it at first reading and at select committee. It's a bill that does quite a number of things. I'm not going to run through them all. It updates the definition of terrorist act" and Andrew Little has spoken to those changes. It creates precursor offences and as he's made the point there are of course offences already in our law generally around attempts conspiracy and the like but here we are creating specific offences criminalising the planning and preparation of a terrorist act criminalising terrorist weapons and combat training and criminalising travel to and from or via New Zealand for international terrorism. This law does a host of other things as well like extending the terrorism finance offence framework to criminalise material support for terrorist activities or organisations which is very much in keeping with our international obligations: United Nations obligations conventions treaties we have signed up to as a nation. For the purposes of this 3 September attack—the stabbings—the new offence of planning and preparation of a terrorist act addresses the gap that is there in the law. I've heard—and I go along with him largely—what the Hon Andrew Little has said which is that this law was not really because of this perpetrator. There's no doubt there's case law as a result of actions of the earlier perpetrator that was sent by Justice Downs to the Attorney-General and I think other Ministers as well. So we are addressing a perceived gap identified by the royal commission of inquiry into the Christchurch terror attacks and also by the High Court and that's a good thing a significant thing that we do.In relation to the details of the provisions I just want to delve into one aspect of the changes to "terrorist act" which of course have to be proven as part of this new precursor offence of planning and preparation and that's the debate that was had in wider society and media articles and also in the select committee. It was a very civil debate I might say. There was not strong fundamental disagreement on these points about whether in the offence we were to use in terms of the intent that a perpetrator would have on the population "terror"—coming down a bit—"fear" or even at a lower threshold "intimidation" as the operative word as the intention as part of that act that needs to be proven.In the end I think fundamentally and unanimously the committee agreed with "intimidate" and I would say as we say in the report there the case law is clear on that. So it's a particular word that is well understood in our courts and internationally that's accepted. The Australias the Canadas and I think the United Kingdoms of this world—it's the same in their terrorist laws. To those who oppose that I would simply say—again as I think we say in the committee report or at least the majority of the report—that that's hardly Draconian. It's still a high threshold. I think Andrew Little made the point that the Crown still has to prove intent to cause death or serious harm in the advancement of an ideological a political or a religious cause as well as that intent if this law passes—which I'm sure it will—to intimidate a population. It's not as if it's an easy thing for the Crown to prove.Just in the remaining time I don't want to be party political fundamentally about this. I think it is right on something of this significance—the protection of New Zealanders—that we don't dredge up the past and say "Well they did this." or "They didn't do that." or "We did this." and "We didn't do that." But I would make a couple of points that I think are important. The first is to commend the leadership of Judith Collins and Mark Mitchell. On this side of the House there is new spokesperson for counter-terrorism in Mark Mitchell and I'm sure in a different world where we didn't have level 4 going to level 3 in Auckland Mark Mitchell would have given a fine contribution to this debate. He has real experience and expertise on the ground internationally on these issues and a credibility I think that it's hard to fault.The second point I'd want to make is one which joins with the Government—the Labour Party—on and that is to make this point: the law was not rushed. There is no rushing here in relation to this bill. It was a normal thorough process that we saw in Parliament and select committee. So I just say knowing that my friends in ACT and the Greens have put in minority views when they do say that "The ACT Party opposes the passage of this bill due to the process adopted by the Government to progress it." it's simply wrong to say that there was anything done here to rush it. Fundamentally we had agreed and gone through the submissions and the changes that we thought should happen on this bill at or before the 3 September terrorist attack.National is the party as the Hon Judith Collins has said that actually does see for itself a role in being responsible on these issues and on the right side of protecting New Zealanders from terrorism whether that is from outside out of country or indeed sometimes tragically enemies are within. Consistently in the last couple of years as we've seen significant terror tragedies in this country—of course the March 15th terror attacks in Christchurch; awful events that have changed this country but then also this significant 3 September attack—we have been on the right side. We've supported sensible rule-making and lawmaking and we do so again today in relation to this Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill."