Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. I wish to just respond to some of the continued assertions by members opposite in relation to this bill. It is in relation to the purpose of the bill clause 3 which sets out the objectives of it—the purpose of it—which is to protect the public from terrorism to prevent engagement in terrorism-related activities in the country and to support the relevant person's reintegration into New Zealand or rehabilitation or both. There are two principal points I want to make.Hon Mark Mitchell: You've sold your soul.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The first is this: we should remember the origins of this bill and its objectives.Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The member Mark Mitchell said You've sold your soul." I expect you to pull him up in the same way that you pulled me up.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I apologise I did not hear that. If the member did say that he'll stand withdraw and apologise.Hon Mark Mitchell: I said "You sold your soul" Madam Chair but I withdraw and apologise.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Oh well I think in fairness that is in the same vein.Hon Gerry Brownlee: He withdrew and apologised.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Did you withdraw and apologise? He did.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you Madam Chair. So the origin is this: the issue of returning foreign terrorist fighters has been known about for some time. It's not the only thing that's been known about. The problems with the Terrorism Suppression Act have been known about since 2007—2007. This piece of legislation has been so problematic the police basically gave up on it and said "We can't enforce it. We can't do things under it." The Government of nine years from 2008 had the opportunity to fix this legislation up and you know what they did? You know how many changes they made to it? Absolutely none and they come here now and lecture this committee on how to make the legislation much better. They did nothing. They have nothing to offer this House on preventing terrorism abroad and preventing people who have committed terrorist activity abroad coming here and how to keep New Zealanders safe. They have nothing to contribute on that. They are totally morally bankrupt when it comes to lecturing this House on this.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! [Interruption] Order! I appreciate that there's some strong feelings but I'd actually ask the Minister to address the bill. We've had almost two minutes now and I would like him to talk to the bill in front of the committee. That's what this process is for and the role of the Minister in the chair is there to answer questions and explain what his piece of legislation is around.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you Madam Chair. I'm responding to the assertions made by members opposite.The other assertion made was that in developing the bill and no doubt establishing its objectives there was a meeting between myself and members of the Opposition and it was suggested—it was asserted—that it was a meeting involving instructions and ultimatums. Now I have to agree with the Hon Gerry Brownlee: that's exactly what happened. It's exactly what the Leader of the Opposition spent the meeting doing—tabled a set of claims and said "We must have that." So we went through it bit by bit we adjourned the meeting and within the hour my office got back to them and said "Here are some things we can agree on." And the response was "We want more. That's not good enough." So there was no willingness at all and having publicly said they would support it then said they were doubtful about it then said they might support it and then said they wouldn't support it I gave up with them. They can't be relied on. So developing a piece of legislation to achieve the objectives set out in clause 3 was not going to be done with members opposite because they just want to play politics.So we went back into the Government and we said you know what? To all the parties in Government you're in Government now. National security is the responsibility of Government and we have to keep New Zealanders safe. That's what we're doing. That's what we've done. It is a great pity that members opposite cannot bring themselves to fulfil their responsibilities as a large party in this Parliament and look to the interests of New Zealanders first and look to the interests of the security and safety of New Zealanders first because they would rather play politics. That is disappointing.But the reality is that the purpose set out in clause 3 of this bill will be fully fulfilled by the rest of the content of this bill. As we get through the rest of the debate tonight we will see and I'll respond to the assertions made by the Hon Mark Mitchell although in relation to Part 2 when we come on to Part 2 because that's very important. The scheme of the Act is very important and what it does will be very important too.I remain totally confident that the bill will do the job that it has set out to do which is to keep New Zealanders safe in the face of those who are entitled to return here from conflict zones where they have gone to engage in combat and conflict and terrorist activity and in other activity with an ideological philosophical or religious cause. Those people do pose a risk. That risk is rising and we have to respond. This Government has responded. It'd be nice to have done it with the cooperation of members opposite but they've fudged and mudged and faffed and fiffed around so that it is simply not possible. They are a disgrace. They're an embarrassment to their own. They will get over this generation of failures but we will get there. But we have to act. The Government has to act. All parties in Government have taken the responsibility of being in Government discharging their responsibilities in relation to national security clearly set out in the objectives of this bill and this bill will do the job that is set of it. I look forward to the rest of the debate."