O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): I want to raise again the issue of the definition of serious crime" and why we have various attempts to define it and change it. Quite frankly New Zealand First is quite happy with the bill as it is with the 2-year term of imprisonment applying and now we see for no apparent reason that the Government is supporting 3 years. I did not hear from the Minister in the chair Chris Finlayson any real argument about why that should be—and another party is promoting 5 years. The reason I am saying this is that I do not see how it assists the operation of the bill simply by trying to raise the threshold in terms of the period of imprisonment which presumably is a way of defining how serious a crime has to be. It is a pretty rough and ready way of doing it. I would prefer to err on the side of a lower period of imprisonment which is the 2-year period for the purposes of the definition in clause 47.I also want to point out that when we see this term actually used in the bill the most important place it is used is in clause 55A which is probably the most important clause of the bill anyway. You see that clause 55A(2)(e) says that "anything that may be relevant to serious crime and that—(i) originates from outside New Zealand or is influenced from outside New Zealand; or (ii) involves the movement of money goods or people—(A) within a country outside New Zealand; or (B) from a country outside New Zealand to New Zealand or to any other country; or (iii) has potential to damage New Zealand's international relations or economic well-being:". The term of imprisonment is not there in isolation by itself; it is used in a context like that and that is the most important context that it is in. For me that is perfectly satisfactory.There is nothing to be gained in my view by increasing the length of the term of imprisonment as a pretty rough way of trying to indicate how serious a crime must be. I have not heard from any party in relation to the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) they have put in or from the Minister about why there should be any change from 2 years. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on that because as it stands at the moment I am inclined to vote for the bill as it is and not for the SOPs that change that period.I also wanted to comment on something else in relation to clause 47 and that is the absence really—actually it is clause 55A I meant to refer to—of a comprehensive definition of "national security". I am happy with that. I am happy with that because if you look at that clause clause 55A you will see for example in clause 55A(1)(a) relating to type 1 intelligence warrants that there is a necessity test for the contribution to the protection of national security and that the warrant "(ii) identifies enables the assessment of or protects against any of the harms specified in subsection (2);"—and David Parker read those out. In that context there is actually no point whatever in trying to attempt any definition of "national security".I disagree with my friend Kennedy Graham who talked a lot about clause 11 which is only the object clause and nothing turns on that whatsoever. In terms of legal liabilities it is these clauses that are relevant not the object clause—nothing turns on that at all. In fact you could leave that clause out and it would not make an iota of difference to the bill. But I am happy that it is there because I do like to see purpose clauses in bills. Beyond that it is not really a very important part of the bill—clause 55A is. Again those terms are used there—and terms like "economic well-being" are used there—but they are in a context and that is the point I am making.The point I am making is that you have to read the whole piece of legislation. You cannot just pick on a few words and say: "What does 'economic well-being' mean?". If you look at this part especially—because this is the really important part of the bill and especially clause 55A—if you look at it as a whole you will see what the context is and there is no need to attempt elegant definitions of terms. There is just no need for it because the terms and conditions upon which a type 1 warrant would be issued are clearly spelt out. Anyone can understand what is required under that clause for the issue of a warrant for type 1 intelligence against New Zealand citizens.I will finish with this: I just want to hear why the Minister thinks it is so important to change from 2 years to 3 years as the Government is proposing now in relation to the definition in clause 47. I would like him to think about what I have said—that there is no advantage in doing that; that the balance of advantage in my view is in keeping the years of imprisonment reasonably low. Down to 2 years for me is satisfactory. I do not see any point in considering anything else and I have not heard any good argument for doing so unless the Minister has got one which I am willing to listen to."