O'Connor Simon; Dyson RuthSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Mr Speaker very pleased to support this bill. Look I'm disappointed the Greens are not—and my next comments are not directed at Golriz Ghahraman herself but the logic or lack of just being put forward by the Greens opposing this bill is just utter utter nonsense and completely absurd on two levels. The impression that's been given is that New Zealand is opening its border to a whole lot of mercenaries—untrained according to the Green Party—who are coming in to invade New Zealand over the course of a few days take over the country deploy themselves with all sorts of weaponry and destroy our country. She also says it's a disgrace and an undermining of rights. The thing about human rights is they always have to be balanced and I hope the Green Party would understand that those people coming from overseas—some of whom are constant targets of threats and harassment; in fact often from socialists and from those on the left—want and need protection. They have a right to their safety.All this bill is enabling is those highly trained protection specialists who accompany heads of State or heads of Government to be able to protect their charges. It is no different from when a Prime Minister of New Zealand or our head of State travels—that they have their own security detail. There is absolutely no difference and this bill is just providing that opportunity to make that legal. And one of the points as we ended up in some again absurd situation that you know certain particular groups are going to be victimised because a whole series of bodyguards are protecting their charges—again hard to understand how that would happen. This is all under the control of the New Zealand Police. This is all to be led through the New Zealand Police.In a press release the Greens have indicated that New Zealand could do it on its own—again absolutely absurd. We have amazing security services. We have a wonderful Defence Force fantastic police officers but there's no way we have enough personnel to provide the security required. So what this bill is attempting to do first and foremost is engage our defence forces and particularly our special forces to be able to work with police and under police jurisdiction and as has been noted allow the protection officers for those visiting dignitaries to be able to operate under police control.Look the bill is coming to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. We look forward to drilling into this a bit further. I think with any legislation we do want to look into it more carefully. Gerry Brownlee has noted a small aspect important though between the interplay of diplomatic immunity and making sure that those people are also—well how would they be treated under New Zealand law if an incident were to happen? One that I'm particularly interested in is that speedy interchange if you will if needed where constabulary powers can be given. Speaking to some of our Defence people and from some previous learnings some of the processes in play to enable constabulary powers to be given particularly under an emergency situation need to be swift. So we're going to tease that out. I understand from the Minister indicating that we've effectively got four months to sort this out. If anything the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee is showing that it can work under pressure.This is a good bill. APEC is incredibly important and useful to New Zealand and if there is one right that we need to emphasise today it's the right to safety: the safety of New Zealanders as an earlier speaker has indicated but I would say that it's also the right of those visiting this fine country to be safe to be able to do their job and represent their country in ours.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): This is a split call. I call Ginny Andersen.