van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Madam Speaker. Look I'm happy to take a call here in the second reading of the Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill. Look I think it's been reasonably well covered by previous speakers in terms of the content of the bill but I do want to make a few points specifically as we pass this through its next stage—and I'm confident it will; we will be supporting it as we have so far. I think it's important on a piece of legislation such as this that there is bipartisan support acknowledging the seriousness of the legislation we're putting in place to try and prevent or reduce that risk and indeed the fact that that threat environment can evolve quite rapidly and increase or decrease over time and do so on any number of occasions.Indeed I think we've got to the point now where we're realising that we need this sort of legislation. It's not something we've had to have through our history and that's something we should be proud of. But unfortunately the sad reality now is that we need to be more cognisant of these sorts of threats from a terrorism perspective in particular and responding appropriately to that is critical.I do want to just pick up on the comments made by a couple of members now—Emily Henderson as the previous speaker alluded to but also the Green Party member Golriz Ghahraman who touched on the upcoming review. That is an important step but actually I don't think it's appropriate unlike the Green member to wait for that review to happen. There is a level of risk right now and we need to make sure that we're able to respond effectively to that. This piece of legislation helps to tighten up some of the criteria around the control orders and designations that can be put in place and indeed more appropriately reflects the fact that someone whilst they may be imprisoned may or may not continue to hold a certain set of beliefs. So pausing that designation whilst they are incarcerated is appropriate and of course having the Prime Minister review that on a three-yearly basis as well I think is an appropriate counter to leaving it in place or effectively pausing the designation as it were whilst they're incarcerated. Indeed it can be difficult to understand from that context whether or not they are still firmly of the belief that may have led to them being there or to the designation being put in place as the case may be.So on that basis those particular aspects I think are an appropriate practical closing of a loophole there that potentially could have caused some issues. That also is why I think it's appropriate to have the retrospective element in the legislation which normally is not good practice in lawmaking to have retrospective elements but in this case again it's appropriate because of the nature of what we're trying to do here to fix some loopholes that were in place in the existing legislation. So therefore this applies to anyone currently subject to one of those designations who may be in prison and then subject to the pause being put in place on their designation and indeed the subsequent review by the Prime Minister as well. So those are practical changes to be made there.On the control orders as well again it's important to be able to adapt to the lessons that we have taken through this journey. Having only put one control order in place so far there have been some lessons learnt from what is or isn't fit for purpose in that context. So being able to tighten that up through this legislation as well is an appropriate response to ensure that we have that flexibility and indeed the ability to have I guess some discretion as Mr Utikere mentioned as well to better reflect individual circumstances. Those individual circumstances can be extremely varied and it can be difficult to capture that appropriately and so having a level of discretion is a good measure to help support the right outcome ultimately with this piece of legislation.So look we're comfortable that this has landed in the right place acknowledging some of the concerns raised through the Justice Committee by the 210-odd submitters I believe it was who took the time to share their views. Again it just highlights that even though we think we have a great piece of legislation there's always opportunity to refine that which speaks to the benefit of the select committee process which has far too often been truncated under this Government. But we have got to a good outcome here on this piece of legislation and so we are happy to continue supporting it at the second reading. Thank you.