Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Speaker. I speak as others have done on this side on the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill. I'm cognisant of the clear need that has been established for legislation of some kind to meet a threat from overseas—by definition that's what we are looking at in this proposed legislation. In particular I note its purpose: among other things to protect the public from terrorism. Of course this is a worthwhile aim the security of the Realm being among the highest good that any Government—or Parliament too for that matter—can concern itself with. So on that much at least there is no disagreement.However as to whether the bill will meet its intended purpose in the committee of the whole House stage there was much detailed discussion about the extent to which we could fairly say that that was the case sufficient to outweigh the consequence that we would potentially engender a false sense of security—to say Well we've got a piece of legislation that will do the things that we want to do. Therefore we need to consider the matter no further."A number of these were traversed pretty well at the committee of the whole House stage. I'll just touch briefly on three that sort of caught my eye as being particularly key. One is the time frame of retention at the border. Just four hours is allowed under the legislation as it was introduced and remains now at this point. Four hours is not very long. Probably BJ Watling will score a century against Australia in the test match later today within that period of time for example and Kane Williamson will score a double hundred. But actually more significantly in terms of the legislation that's just about the time it takes to get from Auckland Airport to the High Court and back. So to be able to think about a process where we need to have the paperwork prepared and the necessary actions taken within that time frame at the risk of losing the person into society perhaps not to be found again until such time as something terrible has happened—that's a real risk that the Parliament should not be contemplating taking.The next point was in relation to the age of the relevant person. I made a case at the committee of the whole House stage that if a person is old enough to engage in terrorism-related activities as defined including that they pose a credible threat then they're old enough to be considered as needing to be protected—or rather New Zealanders need to be protected against such activities by the bill. I further suggested that it could be that a person's age could be taken into account so if they were younger than 18 then they could be treated in a way that's appropriate to their age but not to be excluded from the ambit of the bill entirely. As with other proposals that were made on this side of the House in the committee of the whole House stage that was not accepted or taken up.A brief note on the process versus the substance: we felt on this side of the House that the process being rather rushed at select committee has probably been a contributor to the fact that the substance of the bill the final result is such that we don't think it can be supported.I'll just add a further note just in response to some of the discussion the debate that's gone back and forth across the House this afternoon in relation to the word "children". It's a very emotive concept of course that of the child. It implies a certain innocence as well as of course being a matter in strict legal terms of one's birth certificate. I think the innocence that's implied by the notion of a child is to be understood in the context of a person who if the bill were to apply to them would need to have been proven or at least be a credible threat of being proven to pose a danger to New Zealanders. So I think if we consider the starting point of the bill being to protect New Zealanders against terrorism then I think that that's something we should consider in a pretty holistic—and that is to say a pretty broad—way as opposed to merely saying that because someone is perhaps only 17 years and 364 days old they are not a worthy subject of the bill.With that I conclude except just to note as others have done so that we feel that this legislation falls short of its intended mark and so we cannot support its passage at this stage at this the third and final reading."