Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you Mr Speaker. Look we are definitely going to support this legislation. It is important. It's our one big chance as a country. It's genuinely on the world stage. Of course that provides a huge opportunity for us but it also provides a fair bit of risk if something was to go wrong. If something did go wrong we could potentially suffer reputational risk. We're a country that relies heavily on tourism and if we were seen to be a country that couldn't manage threats and risks then it could have a massive negative impact in an important sector to us as well.I just want to support the comments from the earlier speakers to say that I remember back in 1999—the last time we hosted APEC. I was a serving police officer then. I remember the major drain on resources for us to try and police and secure APEC in 1999. I think that it's a sensible and a pragmatic idea to give the Commissioner of Police the ability to be able to access and work with our New Zealand defence forces. Our New Zealand defence forces are the best in the world and I have absolute—the highest level of—confidence that having them supporting our police in a civilian environment they will not only conduct themselves professionally but also add a lot to and a significant contribution to the overall security profile that we're going to have to provide.I also think that normally I would be against allowing foreign diplomatic service officers to carry weapons in the country—only because of the complex legal issues that would arise if they had to use their weapon and if there was an incident in this country. But I think in a case like this when we've got world leaders coming here I think again it's another very good pragmatic decision to allow the commissioner to have the flexibility to authorise the use of those or the ability for those diplomatic officers to be able to actually provide the level of protection that they want to be able to provide for their heads of States bearing in mind that they are managing their own risks and they'll be aware of risks and threats that we're not aware of. So I think that was also another very good pragmatic decision.The only thing that I would say—and I would appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister on this—is at the moment the House is dealing with a bill the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill. This bill is designed to be able to pick up someone on our border that is returning from overseas after having been involved in or supporting some type of terror activity. There is a massive hole that you could drive a truck through currently on that bill. The reason why it's being raised is because it does relate directly to this. The hole is quite simply this: we could have someone arrive on our border that's been involved in that type of activity and our law enforcement agencies—whether it be Customs or Police—don't have the ability to hold that person or detain that person for more than four hours. To have a control order put in place even a temporary one it has to go through a High Court procedure. That does not give them enough time. So we've got the insidious situation where we could have someone arrive on our border and four hours later walk out into the general population.So I'd appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister: support us in the fact that we're trying to cover off these gaps. We will be introducing if we can't get the legislation through or the changes made in the select committee a Supplementary Order Paper to this House to ensure that our police can actually detain that person for up to 72 hours in which time the High Court can get a control order in place.But in principle we're very happy to stand and support this bill and recommend it to the House. Thank you.