O'Connor SimonClauses 1 and 2SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I feel risky now taking a call but I will take one on the title and commencement now that I've found them there. Look fundamentally that this is coming after Royal assent makes absolutely perfect sense. I suppose it's just a quick affirmation for want of a better phrase that there are no delays. I think enough culpability can be put around the Parliament for when this should or should not have been done. This Government's been here for two years; the argument of course goes that we were here for nine. The recent actions though as we say that particularly have come out of Syria and particularly the Turkish invasion which led to the opening of the prisons and so forth—so just affirming that the commencement date is appropriate.I suppose I do take a little bit of question with the title. I think the intention is that it's a Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill and I won't necessarily have some great examples of what it should be called but the umbrage that this side has is that we are worried that actually the control orders are not sufficient enough. I think we've attempted to illustrate on this side of the Chamber that the controls if you will at the will or whim of the court—that there's contradictory clauses here that actually something can be put forward that there's all these controls around say bank accounts and financial arrangements but that you move on to the next clause and they say well actually you've got to take in the financial wellbeing of the terrorist—it's created contradictions. The place of informed consent and so forth also changes the nature of how well this will control.So one of my fundamental and earlier points which is then illustrated in the title is that this is not actually going to bring about that which it says it wishes to do and so calling this a Control Orders"—yep there's an element of control. There are orders to a degree but it's funny and paradoxical if not sad that the orders themselves can be somewhat contradicted by the terrorists and that ultimately—is this going to suppress terrorism? I suppose that the fear the concern in a more rational sense on this side of the Chamber is this will not actually suppress terrorism. The intention is right some of the structures are right but the fundamental issues remain that this is wide wide open as a bill—doesn't matter if people are under 18 whether we have sufficient intelligence that can be rightly or not shared within the courts that the control orders do not last for a long time. So we have a concern that the title is in some ways misleading or could be seen as misleading. It's not going to suppress terrorism certainly not overseas. We fear that it may not suppress it sufficiently here in New Zealand and the control orders we see as relatively weak.But again with that short contribution here on clause 1 and 2 just to indicate we would like to see a title change which is far more indicative of what we feel on this side of the House is a weak bill and the commencement itself—it makes sense that it's so quick but ultimately and if I might finish on these it's what I've hit many many times in my contributions tonight. The problems we see in my opinion are low probability but probable they are and their risks are immensely high. So perhaps the title is ultimately that this is an ignoring if you will: the "Terrorism Suppression (Low-probability High-risk Ignoring Control Orders) Bill". But anyway I'll finish there with my short contribution."