Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Mr Speaker. Well I'm going to pick up where the chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee has just left off. I'm not going to be as measured as he is in opposing this measure because I acknowledge the role that he has where he has to balance his position as an Opposition member of Parliament with his role as chair of the committee. So I commend him for that.But here we go again with this most open and transparent Government ever apparently as they were determined to be showing that they are anything but. In fact what we have here is a Government that is determined to ride roughshod over parliamentary process and scrutiny on one of the most significant measures that could come before this Parliament. That is a constitutional outrage because as the chairman of the committee has just pointed out this is not a minor matter. This is a very serious issue that goes to the heart of New Zealand's domestic and international security. So there is no doubt at all that the National Party—and I think probably our colleague in the ACT Party—are hotly opposed to this ministerially proposed instruction to the committee. While I respect the fact that the chair of the committee has given an undertaking assuming the Government is able to force its will upon the nation through this instruction that they will do their level best to meet their obligations and to report back in good faith—and of course I do commend that because we would all want to ensure that the committee does its very best work possible—nevertheless it needs to be put on record that this is a shambles it's incompetent and it's utterly unacceptable. I want to call on the Green Party to remember that they have a proud history while they've been in Opposition of opposing measures of this type and I'm sure that tonight they're going to want to maintain their integrity by saying—Andrew Bayly: Are they?SPEAKER: Order! The member can't reflect on parties' integrity.Hon TIM MACINDOE: I wasn't sure if you were referring to the colleague beside me sir. SPEAKER: I missed his; if he was naughty he's lucky—right? Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well I stand corrected on that. I'm sure that the Green Party will wish to maintain their record in such matters. So I want to reflect and remind them that there is a very well-known maxim that if a job's worth doing it's worth doing well and so far typically this Government seems hell-bent on doing the important jobs as badly as possible. What could cause greater fear in our communities than the threat of terrorism? I know I can't get into the substance of the bill—I would like to—but nevertheless I can focus on the work or the task that this committee is going to be given. Let's reflect on the fact that effectively they have just three sitting weeks under this particular motion to complete all their business. As the chair of the committee has pointed out it is presumably going to be tomorrow that the issue will be opened up to the public for submissions. So that is a remarkably short period of time for the committee to receive those submissions to provide the opportunity for people to be heard—and I have no doubt at all that many will wish to be heard given the severity of this measure—to receive official advice to hear from the security agencies who of course are going to need to be heard and then to process all of that information and do what select committees can do well and that is to suggest improvements to the bill. We on this side of the House believe that improvements to this bill are not only desirable but frankly essential. So all of that and then as the chair of the committee has pointed out to have the bill reported back to the House by 3 December? Well the Government should never have allowed this to happen. We all know why the bill is being introduced. We all recognise—in particular in the wake of 15 March in Christchurch—that it is an important issue for the House to address and in fact as has been well articulated the National Party would like to be able to be supportive of this measure. I can't go into the reasons why we're not at the stage suffice to say that we will work in the select committee if we're given the chance to do so to improve the bill. I think it is going to be a matter of grave concern to the public that effectively it is the Green Party who have influenced the way in which this bill is now being handled because I am yet to meet a single constituent in Hamilton West or any New Zealander in other parts of the country who wants the Greens to be the dominant players in shaping our terrorism legislation. It's outside of the scope I realise to discuss what they are putting on the table but it is absolutely—SPEAKER: Yes the member has drifted. Hon TIM MACINDOE: Yes but sir the point I'm making is that it is absolutely in scope to indicate concern on behalf of the public about the way in which their contribution will influence the work of the committee. Our security agencies must be heard in this matter. They need to have the time to prepare the advice that the committee needs to hear. This proposal demonstrates extraordinary arrogance and incompetence as I've said in equal measure and especially from this Minister Minister Little who should be much better than this. The committee will need to be able to reflect on the changes that he proposed between the initial concept of the bill that he sold to the public and those that ultimately made it into the House for the debate in its first reading just the Thursday before last. I can strongly argue for the public to have their chance to consider what happened to cause those changes and to submit on those proposed changes as well. This truncated process of course will constrain their opportunities to do that it will compromise the committee's ability to hear evidence on their merit and it will severely curtail their opportunity to consider making changes or recommending changes that could make for a much better bill. Select committees are a vital part of our democratic process and any member who has been here will know that at their best select committees can make significant recommendations and improvements to bills. Governments have often commented on the fact that a better measure has come back as a result of the detailed scrutiny that a select committee can bring. They are often impressive in the way they operate they're often collegial and they're often willing to consider things that might not occasionally in the cut and thrust of debate in this House seem to be able to be considered. But in the calmer more measured atmosphere of a select committee we can see changes being made and that's the appeal that we in the National Party are asking for in this process. That is the sort of atmosphere that I know that the chair of the committee will want to preside over and that I know having been formerly the deputy chair of that particular select committee they often succeed in achieving. But the truncated nature of this process will put them under unreasonable pressure. Select committees are not a Government's rubber stamp yet in this case that's exactly how they're being asked to perform. They're not a nice-to-have" feature of Parliament; select committees are a vital feature of lawmaking. They are an important part of an Opposition's ability to hold a Government to account—SPEAKER: Order! The member will now come back to the motion please.Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well sir we are opposing this motion because it's vital to get this legislation right and what we are saying is that a truncated process of this type will compromise the select committee's ability to do that. We're not talking about a minor measure; we are talking about an imminent threat to New Zealand's national security. I can't go into the actual circumstances that have led to it but the very fact that the committee will be dealing with something of that severity indicates why we must get it wrong or get it right sorry—absolutely get it right. So I do hope we're going to hear not only from the Green Party—who as I say have a strong record of opposing such measures—but also the New Zealand First Party because I would be very interested to know how they feel about the fact that a bill that is now going to a select committee is different from the one that they were asked to consider and support at the outset and what their contribution to the work of the select committee will be. Are they going to feel constrained or compromised in their ability to influence changes to this bill? I see Mr Ball has been shaking his head. I hope he's going to take a call to stand up and explain his body language because they're the party who hold the balance of power in this Government and this is an issue where the party that holds the balance of power needs to stand up and be accountable to the public. Simon O'Connor: Put New Zealand first. Hon TIM MACINDOE: Put New Zealanders first as the chair of the committee has said. So I appeal to all members to oppose this motion. I appeal to them to consider just how significant it is how much of a constitutional outrage it is how important it is for the public to be able to be heard and for the security agencies to be able to do their job and I do hope that they will think again and not put this committee in such an impossible position."