SpeechVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you for the opportunity to take a call at the third reading of this bill Mr Speaker. I'd like to begin also by recognising Minister Allan who's done an exceptional job ushering this bill through the House—and it is a complex area of law—and also by acknowledging Minister Prime who's spoken to the bill this evening. I'd like to acknowledge the Justice Committee. We do work very collegially across the House on these important bills and I think the conversation at committee stage last night reflected some of the tensions that we did have to deal with. So acknowledging my colleagues from the National Party and the ACT Party as well as Labour who worked very well. I almost think that we worked in a best-practice way on this bill: we took advice from officials we then heard from submitters and then we went back to officials for further advice and clarification.This is a complex area of law because it requires us to strike a balance between rights and community safety and make some really difficult balance calls. But I think everyone in this House will acknowledge that we're in complex times and we need to make those difficult calls.But I also do think that there are areas of law that we need to either keep under review or ensure that our eye is persistently on and I think this is one of those areas for a number of reasons. The first is the complexity around definitions. A while back there was a UN Security Council Resolution 2178 which asked States specifically to take action around terrorism and foreign returned fighters but it quite conspicuously didn't set out a definition for terrorism. I think what we're seeing internationally is the domestication of international law but we're all starting to grapple with these difficult terms around who is a foreign fighter who is a returned fighter what are the boundaries of terrorism. This is a complex space.I think the other challenge for this area of law is that there's a certain hybridity to control orders in that technically they sit in the civil space but there's a conceptual flavour about them that gives them a criminal lean and so the natural questions to ask are what are the proper procedural oversights etc. In this case I think we landed on recognising that while section 25 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—on criminal charges procedure isn't triggered—section 27 which embodies common law principles of natural justice is.Finally I think it's complex because it's preventative in its nature. Some of our submitters did dwell on that. But this isn't the first time that laws have been preventative—they often are. Catherine Hensen points out in her thesis that we find the germ of this concept quite early in justice legal theory. In fact it's present in Hobbes' and Locke's conception of a social contract where citizens have to sacrifice some degree of their personal autonomy in exchange for the security provided by the State. This is a difficult area of law.But I do want to assure everyone in the room and those who are watching that the select committee very diligently went through looking at what the appropriate balance was. The Minister in the House yesterday spoke to the gates that you had to step through to be able to be subject to a control order. There are three the first being that the person must be a relevant person. The fact that that gate had been expanded but also the fact that the second two gates stood as is—that there needs to be a real risk of engaging in a terrorism-related activity and finally that the judge needs to make the call on those particular circumstances. So I'm assured that there are suitable protections in place in this regard. This is a complex area of law but it is very much needed now. I commend this bill to the House.