Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Oh thank you Madam Speaker. I think we must have a very different definition of some of the words that have been used in this debate and I want to start with things like consultation" and "bipartisanship" and "proper scrutiny" as the previous speaker Meka Whaitiri said and now "organisation" because we've just heard that the members of the Government benches who are speaking on this bill are members of the Justice Committee and yet the bill is going to be referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. So organisationally we are in something of disarray.But let's start with bipartisanship. The Minister of Justice is right: there has been a long period of bipartisanship in security issues and that's as it should be but that has taken a significant hit this week by the Minister's tin-eared belligerence over any sort of compromise or amendment to the bill. I'll go through the time line—before I get into the substance of the bill I want to go through the time line as I understand it. If the Minister doesn't think I've got it right I'm sure he will interject.But I do know that he met with Mr Mitchell the Opposition justice spokesperson in July. At that time the risk was becoming known and the Minister had signalled his intention to introduce legislation. In principle the Opposition justice spokesperson said "Yes of course we would support that sort of legislation." but as far as I can tell there was no consultation between July and October in terms of the substance of the legislation that was intended to be introduced—no interjection there; it can't have been incorrect. Even when the bill was introduced the National Party at short notice—there's no question that we said we would support the bill at first reading; the press release said as much: "National will support terrorism legislation." That was our hope then; it's actually still our hope if the Minister would take his tin ears off.The following day the Leader of the Opposition sent another press release: yes it supports it wants to act in good faith but it needs to sit down with the Government to talk through the details and the proposed amendments that the National Party had. At that point while we chose not to use this as leverage we were aware that the Government did need the National Party's support. We wanted to provide it. Then came the famous Monday meeting and that's where there is a very different perception of what went on between the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Justice. But the Minister has not been able to point to a single one of the seven proposed amendments that he could agree to and the reason is quite simple: because he won't. His idea of bipartisanship and cooperation is "We've got a bill at first reading which is the gold standard does not need amendment and so the National Party's suggested changes are completely unnecessary."Why would we feel put upon alone on that? He's just shown the same contempt and disdain for the whole select committee process. He's sending it firstly not to the Justice Committee despite being the Minister of Justice and he's going to give the whole country days probably to respond and weeks to submit and then for officials to report back to this House through the select committee by 3 December. It is outrageous. So we don't feel put upon alone; the Minister has shown contempt for the whole country.He still hasn't given me one—not one—suggested change that he could live with and he says in reply to my colleague Amy Adams' speech "How many? How many?" The answer Minister is we don't know how many. How old? The answer is we don't know. How long will it take to rehabilitate terrorism offenders? We don't know and to pick an arbitrary six-year limit where the one person we do know about has been radicalised for more than twice that length of time has severe issues and will require very close monitoring before security officials can say he is safe to be left unmonitored is simply wrong.Like the Hon Amy Adams I served on the Cabinet National Security Committee and as Minister of Immigration and as Minister of Police there are some things that come before that committee that can be very very challenging. I agree with the Minister: we know a lot. We know a lot about the security risks to this country but we don't know everything. We didn't know about the terrorist who committed an atrocity on 15 March. We know about some of the New Zealanders who have left to fight overseas and who would fall within the terms of this bill but we don't know them all. We don't know the age of those people we don't know in the same way that the United Kingdom didn't realise they were going to have 15-year-old girls leave and go through Turkey to Syria and Australia has had school children who have left to become terrorists.If the Minister doesn't think that's necessary or appropriate why does he not just see it as a belts and braces issue? If he doesn't think a 17-year-old could come back to this country and fall within the terms of this bill where's the harm in putting it in? If we don't know how long it's going to take to rehabilitate Mark Taylor why put an arbitrary limit on it? And if we don't know how many as the Minister says—"how many" which he said six times—well then what's the harm in at least having a conversation about these proposed changes? The Minister will not do it. I ask this of either the Minister or the member of the Green Party who is going to speak at this first reading: what on earth changed? Because if he didn't give concessions to the National Party he sure as heck must have given some concessions to the Green Party because we heard the drum-beating rhetoric from Golriz Ghahraman. I want to find the quotes that she gave. She was pretty unambiguous about the Green Party's—not just hers—disdain for this bill: "unnecessary overkill a dog whistle". So who's dog-whistling now Ms Ghahraman and what did the Green Party get in return for their support for this bill at first reading?I don't know that we're going to get the answer to that until perhaps the committee of the whole House and that's not far away. But here's what we know. We start with a bill that we think is half safe. The Minister will not look at—he won't even entertain the National Party's sensible suggestions. So therefore what we must be seeing is a bill that is going to become even less safe. So if he's not going to support the National Party's proposals and he will support whatever the Green Party has secured in return for their votes we are going to be less safe not more safe. It won't be belts and braces from the Greens. It will be a relaxation of the control order process and indeed the media have already been reporting that there are going to be some concessions in respect of the ability of legal counsel to see certain things. What worries me about that is that it's really hard to slice certain information relative to a potential control order recipient from other information that is often received in confidence by our five country partners.I ask this: if the Minister is going to concede those things or matters similar to them has he spoken to our Five Eyes partners about their view about the willingness that they have to continue to share security information? Because I think that makes this country less safe. And the very intention of this bill is going to be undermined by the concessions the Minister will inevitably have had to have made to the Green Party and that will make us all less safe less well-off less informed and that's why we cannot support it at first reading."