SpeechALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): In reply I would like to say a couple of things. We are not talking about how Māori are treated differently in the justice system. We are not talking about earthquakes. We are talking about a very simple piece of legislation—in fact a one-pager. It is a one-pager. All it does is allow the penalty to be increased for those who are interested in possessing explosives to blow someone up obviously. So that is it. That is it. It is very very simple but it is very very important and I will tell you why. It sends a message. It sends a message to the community and it sends a message through the judiciary to say that this is a serious matter. Mr Clendon is right. It might be that a person in possession of explosives could be caught under some other category of the Crimes Act. But this makes it explicit and those categories do not have a maximum of 5 years' imprisonment. So for those who say Oh it's never happened." "It's hardly happened." or "It's not going to happen." well let us just imagine if it did happen. Let us imagine that if the guy who was out on the pavement just recently with a carload of fuel for the purpose of blowing this place up—imagine if that had happened. He is up for only 2 years at the moment. He is up for only 2 years but we have spent a lot of money around this place on putting in bollards to protect ourselves from numbskulls who have some idea that they want to blow people up. You know I cannot understand Mr Clendon your view that because there have been only half a dozen people arrested or charged or locked up—that is just not relevant. It is absolutely not relevant. That is like saying: "Oh no one's ever going to drive two planes into a tower and kill 5000 people because it has never happened before." Well Mr Clendon get into the real world. There are new technologies out there. There are real scary people out there who are interested in blowing this place up. Whether it be gangs out there whether it be on just a political basis whether it is protecting their P patch whether it is protecting their tinny house there are ways and means that people will take on and they will use explosives to make their point or to defend their patch. For someone to be able to provide explosives for that purpose and walk away with only 2 years maximum is just a nonsense. It is just a nonsense and it demonstrates again that you guys are soft on crime. You may say that some sentences should be this way and that way and that we should not lock people up for ever and all that sort of carry on but let us get it right. Let us get it right with regard to a degree of the importance of the sentence. Mr Mark had a point. Mr Mark had a very reasonable point. Maybe it should be 5 years minimum. Maybe it should be 5 years minimum. I am not going to agree or disagree with Mr Mark at this point and that is why it is important that it goes to a select committee so that people can discuss and consult. Perhaps we will get Mr Clendon's vote in the second reading after he has actually understood the issue and the risks that are involved in having people carrying around explosives letting them off with smart phones. You know this technology has moved on since Ernie Abbott's explosion. Technology has enabled people to get away with a lot more things. But also obviously with surveillance and so on it is a good thing as well. Nevertheless there are people out there who are interested in harming others and we need to send a clear message that carrying explosives and using explosives for the purpose of damaging property and humans is unacceptable and will be punished."