Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair. Resuming on clause 7 of this Part 1 I just wanted to make a couple of comments before I complete my contributions on this part in relation to what's described as facilitating or supporting terrorism. The reason this is relevant—or the context if you will—is that a person engages in terrorism-related activities if they do among other things facilitate or support the carrying out of terrorism. It's helpful I think that the bill talks about terrorism being facilitated or supported only if that person knows or ought reasonably to know that terrorism is facilitated or supported. So this is useful to have constructive knowledge as part of the requirement. That's helpful from an evidential point of view. It might be that it's difficult for the New Zealand authorities to prove that a person actually did know that they were facilitating or supporting but if it's possible to say that they should have known presumably given the circumstances and presumably given their level of intellect—maybe competence as we might say in the law maybe involvement with terror-related groups—if it's the case that we can say with some certainty that someone ought to have known that they were effectively supporting or facilitating terrorism then that's enough under the bill. I think that's a worthwhile thing for the bill to do in setting a threshold whereby we can draw a line and say that these activities are proscribed by the Act and therefore the provisions to protect New Zealanders apply at that point.In the same clause we see that it's not necessary however that specific terrorism needs to be known about by the person who's said to be a facilitator or supporter. I presume that this means something along the lines of: if a person is a member of an organisation that's known to carry out terror activities then notwithstanding that they don't know or may not have known that a particular terrorist attack would take place at a particular time in a particular way none the less they will be caught by the provisions of this Act. So again I think that's a helpful thing. If the Minister's got any comment to make about the way that I'm interpretating that—excuse me interpreting that as to whether I'm correct or incorrect—Hon Members: Ha ha!CHRIS PENK: —I can see that my interpretation of the word interpret" is incorrect and that's caused some amusement across the Chamber—then I'll be happy to take feedback on any of those aspects. Just to turn to clause 8 reasonably briefly and perhaps unexpectedly we've got a provision there entitled "Status of examples". It might seem an unusually technical provision for me to focus on even if not atypical for me to focus on a technical example but what we've got there is not merely an exercise in statutory interpretation where we're saying an example used in the Act doesn't limit the provision. That's actually a significant thing because what it tells us is that we're concerned with a piece of legislation that does give examples. It does contemplate specific types of situations but the fact that a provision will apply regardless of whether it doesn't seem to be consistent with the examples given or not really indicates the nature of what we are concerned with here which is that terrorism has no particular shape that is fixed in time."Terrorism" is broadly speaking an act I suppose of political violence if you'll excuse the definition somewhat on the run—Hon Tim Macindoe: That's a fair interpretation.CHRIS PENK: —and it's not in accordance with the Act. It's a fair interpretation I hear across the House thank you—well from my side of the House indeed the Hon Tim Macindoe; I'm no less an authority on language and law than the shadow Attorney-General. It shows that what we're concerned with here—and this is relevant to the way that we want the law to operate—is we don't always know what terrorism looks like and its methods can be unexpected. It's a classic case of—and this goes again to the way that it's interpreted and the mechanics of the thing; the unlikelihood or the likelihood or the certainty of it needing to be applied when someone comes into the country—sometimes we know what we don't know but sometimes we don't know what we don't know. We know now that the things that we don't know will be known to us only when we do know them. So for that reason we need to be somewhat humble when we contemplate our ability as lawmakers to contemplate all the different situations that might arise all the examples and we shouldn't limit ourselves in making provisions that will apply in any situation whatsoever for the protection of New Zealanders."