Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Speaker—I just got tied up in another matter.So speaking to the Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill I think that the points that the Minister has made first of all—and then others speaking to it—have been well made. I think at this the second reading it's worth reflecting a little bit on the treatment of the subject at the Justice Committee.I note the chair of the Justice Committee Vanushi Walters has now resumed her seat although this was a matter that was discussed at earlier stages within this Parliament. So while she and other members—including I see Dr Emily Henderson among others—considered the bill I think for the part that I was able to observe from the outside so to speak it seemed to be a good process. It seemed to be one of careful and good-faith consideration of some pretty important issues.I'd like to step through a couple of those issues but I'd be remiss if I didn't begin with an acknowledgment of the fact that in this country as my colleague and friend Mark Mitchell has said we are not immune to terrorist attacks. While they are mercifully rare they are on the other hand extremely serious in nature when they occur—most obviously and most tragically in terms of number of lives lost of course we think of the March 15 atrocity at the mosques in Christchurch and we think particularly of those who lost their lives that day those who live still with the memory of that tragedy and also those who quickly leapt into action to try to physically defeat the actions of the terrorist and who no doubt live still with the memory of that day.I emphasise this not to take us far away from the content of the bill but it's important context. The reason that it's important is because Parliament must as a responsible lawmaking body—if that's what we are at least some of the time—consider situations that are extreme that are unusual as I said before mercifully so but in respect of which there is a risk that is not trivial. And so while we are weighing the restriction on rights that we impose as a State on individuals whom we incarcerate and otherwise deal with in a criminal justice manner we must be mindful of the huge stakes that are involved.This is of course not to say that we should be blasé about the human rights involved but it does go to a weighing exercise. Of course whenever you're talking about human rights—and we are talking about human rights human rights of different parties—it's important to weigh in the balance those competing rights and considerations. And also because the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act specifically invites us—indeed requires us—to make that consideration when it talks about justified limitations" on the rights contained in that Act.So in this bill we see that it's possible to amend or that the bill will in fact amend the regime that currently exists in relation to designations and control orders for those who have been deemed "terrorist". And that's not a sort of mere use of vernacular to indicate disapprobation; in fact it's a technical term. It's a particular definition or indeed designation that is made. So what we're really grappling with now as a Parliament is the extent to which we can say that a person who already has that designation attached to them can be required to remain in that state for the benefit of the community whose safety will be improved while that person remains in that state and with all the monitoring and restrictions that go along with it.Of course the flip side is that a person who has their liberty deprived—albeit for very very very good reasons—nevertheless might say if they were here that their rights are being breached. One doesn't have to be too much of a bleeding-heart liberal to say "Well actually even approaching the matter from say a libertarian perspective the State shouldn't exercise its considerable power against individuals in a reckless or irresponsible way." So we say well is it reasonable to do as this legislation is doing: restricting a person's liberty to the extent that we are saying that the designation that they have as a terrorist will continue for longer as a result of this bill? There's a retrospective element to some extent and as a starting point no Parliament should actually want to be engaged in retrospective lawmaking except that sometimes it's justified. I think it's important that we do justify it if we're engaging in changing of the law in a way that effectively looks backwards. We had as recently as last night some retrospective or retroactive lawmaking—I can never remember the difference between those got a number of—Marja Lubeck: Retrospective I think.CHRIS PENK: "Retrospective" I hear from Marja Lubeck. Do I have any further bids? I'm looking at Duncan Webb I'm looking to my right I think I see a wave of the hand. If this were an auction Arena Williams you would have just bought a house! But I think you're probably not engaging in my little game—Arena Williams: Wrap it.CHRIS PENK: Pardon me. We should wrap it. Well I don't want to look too far backwards but we've had I think a pretty good debate on that actually so far.But retrospective or retroactive as the case may be we are saying that the person who's deprived of their liberty is going to be subject to that designation as a "terrorist" for longer. So how or why is that the case? Well the answer is that if a person wants to apply to have that designation revoked then they can't say in effect that they're no longer involved in acts that led to or would lead to designation as a terrorist. Well if they're in prison then of course they can't—or at least they shouldn't be able to. It would be illogical if we were to say "Oh well you're not a terrorist any more you know—by the way I hope you're enjoying His Majesty's accommodation—and therefore we consider you to be a reformed person." Of course we want a terrorist to be reformed to the extent that they might be rehabilitated and maybe de-radicalised and encouraged and otherwise persuaded not to engage in such evil acts. But the mere fact of them not being able to undertake those acts while they are in prison shouldn't count to their credit in the determination of whether they are still a terrorist at heart.We're also seeing that the expiry of the designation would be paused. So a designation as a terrorist isn't indefinite; it's for a certain period of time but you don't get to run out the clock on that designation simply because you're behind bars for having committed an atrocity—for example and actually specifically and explicitly in the case of the March 15 terrorist.We also see here that as a result of this bill it will be the case that while a person's imprisoned the Prime Minister no less—he or she at the time—would be required to review every three years whether the designation is no longer justified. I know I've engaged in a double negative and I'm probably far too prone to do that but the wording I think is quite deliberate coming out of the select committee whereby they're using the language of the statute to say that the test is whether or not the designation is no longer justified. So that would be on the basis on which the designation as a terrorist would continue to hold. So all of that's to do with the designation. And then you've got control orders. We won't get through all of those in the available time but we've got basically a broader range of objectionable publications if we're thinking about what would make a person eligible to be subject to a control order and also to allow a control order to cover individuals who have been sentenced to home detention or a community-based sentence. So if someone who commits an act that leads them to be designated as a terrorist should have the relative good fortune of being sentenced only to home detention or a community-based sentence as opposed to being imprisoned in a traditional manner then they shouldn't have the benefit also of avoiding a control order if a control order would be appropriate given what they've done. A control order in sentence conditions would be able to apply concurrently and I don't have the time to state my own view on that. But suffice to say for the reasons that the Minister has set out and as my colleague Mark Mitchell has emphasised in support and including the fact that the Minister has engaged diligently in a nonpartisan basis on this we do support this bill and its continued passage."