Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chairperson. I also would like to speak on the Part 1 aspects—in particular the purpose of the bill and the way that the bill is not able to meet fully those purposes as set out in Part 1 I think; in clause 3 from memory. In doing so I refer back to some comments that have been made at earlier stages of the House's consideration of the bill including the commentary to the bill and in relation to the likelihood of a relevant person being able to arrive unexpectedly on these shores. Just to take a step back the meaning of relevant person" is given in clause 6—again within Part 1 of course. There we've got a person who is 18 years or older—and I'll return to that aspect perhaps in a separate contribution—who is or may be coming to New Zealand or has arrived in New Zealand and who before their arrival in New Zealand has done a number of different things. I don't intend to examine each of those yet but I do want to note the relevance of the person having arrived on these shores or the prospect of them doing so in relation to the authorities being aware of that fact. One of the National Party's objections to the bill—in the sense that it is actually not strong enough as the Hon Mark Mitchell has alluded to—is the possibility that an unexpected arrival could occur such that a longer period of time than four hours of detention would actually in fact be needed. The commentary makes clear that from the National Party point of view longer than four hours is needed and it's clear from the official advice—I think I read it correctly; I wasn't at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee's consideration from start to finish but I did attend some—that it was "unlikely" that a relevant person could arrive unexpectedly. The word unlikely is not the same as impossible of course. So we are allowing ourselves as a Parliament if we're to pass this thing in its current form the possibility even if unlikely that a relevant person could arrive unexpectedly. From that point or rather the point that a relevant person is taken into detention the clock is ticking and it's a short time frame indeed at a mere four hours that such action to detain them further for the purpose of protecting the New Zealand public would need to be observed. Relating to the "Main purposes" of the Act—with that being a subheading of "Purpose of this Act" at clause 3—we note that it is to protect the public from terrorism. That is not qualified by such an adjective or concept as "likelihood"—in fact it's not an adjective at all but the notion of likelihood. It's implied that in fact what we are after is certainty partly because we haven't qualified it in that way but also given the subject matter namely the protection of the public from terrorism and the importance of that. That's something that we should not leave to chance or mere matter of likelihood but rather with as much certainty as it's reasonably possible to obtain. Now I do accept that it would be possible to say "Well 72 hours might not be long enough either" and we're merely arguing over a question of degree between four hours and 72 hours. But I think that there is a significant difference between those two such that we can justify an argument that four hours would not be long enough but 72 hours three days would in fact meet that purpose. Of course we do need to be careful from a Bill of Rights point of view that we don't detain people a) unnecessarily or b) unnecessarily long. But of course in all human rights—indeed civil rights political rights and so forth—a balancing act is to be achieved with the weighing of the rights of the public at large to be protected from terrorism versus the rights of an individual who is suspected—yes only suspected and innocent till proven guilty—of something that would have a disproportionately severe effect on his or her fellow New Zealand residents if I can use that shorthand. That's a serious matter that we should concern ourselves with in this House. And so it is that—[Time expired]"