Macindoe Tim; Rurawhe AdrianHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): During that extraordinary speech I've been watching the Minister in charge of the bill Andrew Little and he spent the whole time with his head down because I can only assume that he is sitting there thinking Oh my lord this bill is going to get even weaker." We are suddenly being treated to a lecture on all sorts of extraneous matters which are not covered in this bill and told instead that what we're going to have is further changes made in select committee to weaken it down. Well I respect the rights of all people but this is not a bill about trampling on the rights of the rainbow community of feminists or anybody else. Make no mistake this is a bill about preventing terrorism from hitting our shores. This is a bill about preventing some of the most dangerous people on the planet from undermining our safety and our public security.Previous National Party speakers in the debate this afternoon have made the point already that this is a very weak response from a Government to very serious and worrying security issues. I am hugely disappointed that the Labour and the New Zealand First parties have placed greater priority on watering down this measure in order to appease their Green Party colleagues than working with the National Party who have been willing to work in good faith because we recognise how serious this issue is on such an important aspect our country's security and counter-terrorism measures which should be designed to strengthen the bill in ways that I have no doubt would find favour with an overwhelming number of New Zealanders.Well assuming this bill passes its first reading in about 20 minutes or so—because the Government has the numbers—National members of course will still try to work with other parties to improve the bill in the interests of public safety and peace of mind for all law-abiding New Zealanders. But boy we have now got a real understanding of just what a challenge that will be. So I say to everybody who is listening to this debate: please make your submissions. Make your voice heard to the committee. Unfortunately it's been indicated that you're going to have very little time to do that and that's a travesty in itself but please ensure that you stiffen the Government's intentions—give them some real backbone to ensure that we have a measure that is fit for purpose at the end of this process.The Minister in his opening speech made demonstrably false and outrageous claims about National's approach to negotiations on this bill. The fact of the matter is that National considered and discussed the proposed bill in good faith and with genuine suggestions to strengthen and improve the bill. It is the Minister and his Government who were tricky and disingenuous. His words were: engaging in "blatant party politicking". Well that's pot calling the kettle black because as the Minister alleged he had to deal with the open hostility of the Green Party—his own support party colleagues initially—in order to get his initial proposals considered and he's had to water them down. In other words he has capitulated to bring the Green Party on board. Well what a shame it is that he would do that on such an important measure when he could have worked with the largest party in the Parliament—the Opposition National Party—and got a measure that would be enduring and that would enjoy widespread support in our country.So let me repeat that National wanted to be able to support this bill at this first reading and we still want to take a constructive approach to the select committee's deliberations and the consideration of submissions but the Minister was unwilling to reciprocate and instead turned his guns on the Opposition—the largest party in the Parliament—and confirmed that he would adopt a shoddy process and press ahead with a weak bill that will not achieve its purpose.Mr Little in his typically belligerent fashion interjected while my colleague the Hon Amy Adams was leading off for the National Party in this debate that he had asked National to come up with some alternative proposals and that we hadn't done so. That was his interjection. Well how patently dishonest. How transparently false that is. He knows the changes that National is seeking our leader told him what they were and they're a matter of public record.So let me repeat them for him and for those who are listening. The changes that National needs to see included in this bill in order to be able to support it include lowering the age-limit for control orders to those aged 14 years and over there is good reason for doing that I'm sure that will be discussed in detail at the select committee; increasing the maximum duration of control orders; removing the financial penalty entirely and increasing the term of imprisonment to five years; including a new provision to ensure that control orders will capture those convicted of a terrorist offence in New Zealand—well who on earth wouldn't want to do that?—including a new provision to allow police to detain returnees if necessary to comply with the requirements of a control order. Well yes of course those are tougher measures because we believe that this bill needs to be strengthened.The Minister knew all of that his colleagues knew all of that despite the fact that they've stood up in this debate today and alleged that National wouldn't cooperate and that National brought nothing to the table. Well National did; he knows it his allegations are utterly false—Greg O'Connor: Bought a press release all they've ever done—they bought a press release.Hon TIM MACINDOE: To pretend that they've never been told is extraordinary—and for Mr O'Connor to keep interjecting in that inane fashion shows that he is also dancing on the head of a pin trying to defend the indefensible here. They're not extreme or out of line our proposals they are exactly what we see in many of our main international partners and their regimes and it is absolutely appropriate that we should be on the same page as them.As my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse said the Government is showing contempt for Parliament and the public by proposing yet again a very short time for submissions to be made and heard and for the select committee to do its business—Greg O'Connor: Contempt for cheap politics that's what we're showing.Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well Mr O'Connor that's not cheap politics; that's contempt of Parliament. That is absolutely insulting to New Zealanders. That is an appalling thing to do—that is an appalling thing to do.Greg O'Connor: Cheap and shallow.Hon TIM MACINDOE: Mr O'Connor when the National Party was in Government—that member wasn't here at the time—we took very seriously our responsibilities regarding national security and we always worked with the Labour Opposition to ensure that we could have as bipartisan approach as possible because the onus is on all of us as lawmakers—not just on the Government; on all of us particularly when we're facing matters such as counter-terrorism—to be as strong and as united as we can be because our primary responsibility is to ensure the safety of New Zealanders.The threat that is posed by foreign fighters who have left New Zealand to fight alongside terrorist organisations is very real. We don't have all of the information but what we do have tells us that we must be utterly vigilant and utterly prepared to deal with them particularly should they ever return to this country.Let me just turn quickly to some of the speeches we've heard from the minor parties. Well the speech from the New Zealand First representative frankly was a disgrace. Its only good feature was that it lasted less than two minutes because he had nothing to say other than attacking the National Party. I can only imagine the discussion that must have taken place in a caucus with a party with the name "New Zealand First" that used to proclaim that they put New Zealanders first and it used to claim that they were strong on law and order and security measures. Well here they've just rolled over completely and their supporters I think will be appalled. That is a disgrace. His speech was a disgrace.But what of the next party? We heard from Ms Ghahraman. In her first minute I thought "Oh well this is interesting." She reminded us of the horror of 15 March—of course that's absolutely relevant to today's discussion so I commend her for doing that and she did mention the threat of foreign fighters and terrorists. So in her first minute she certainly did a lot better than the New Zealand First Party. But then she turned her fire on our allies. That is when suddenly she made the most outrageous comment attacking our key security partners. Well even people in the Green Party must realise that a tiny country like New Zealand needs its allies needs its key security partners and is grateful to them. It doesn't mean that we accept all of their views on every matter but it does mean that we work cooperatively in good faith with them. Well clearly the Green Party have no track for this measure. We were then treated to her lecture on civil liberties where she mentioned Mark Taylor in the same sentence as civil liberties. Well I'm sorry I don't think there are many New Zealanders who are more upset about Mark Taylor's civil liberties this afternoon than they are about the important measures that we should be implementing to protect the safety of all New Zealanders. So I am horrified to think that the Green Party will take that attitude into the select committee's work and I can only hope that they get a reality check before they do.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Ginny Andersen—five minutes."