O'Rourke Denis: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 08 May 2013. Volume:689;Page:9692. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First opposes the time frame proposed in the motion. We think 2 months is ridiculously short. The essential issue of course is whether the Government really has any genuine interest in the views of the public and in the contributions that might be made by special-interest groups. There are likely to be many of them on this particular bill the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill.The shortness of the time frame indicates to me and I think to many others that the Government has in fact prejudged the issues in this bill and that it is not interested at all in what the public has to say. Nor is the Government interested in getting quality submissions because quality submissions from the public do take time. Hurried submissions are likely to be less considered and less comprehensive. So what are we really achieving by having such a constricted time frame? What we are achieving is less quality and a less properly considered bill by the public. The public does have a right to participate properly in these matters.It is a shame that that is the case because much can be learnt from the public and from special-interest groups. Many bills as we all know are altered as a result of well-considered public submissions. We have to acknowledge that we members of Parliament the Government and the officials do not always know everything about these issues and certainly do not always get them right. In fact the history of this legislation shows that past Governments and officials got it wrong.I have studied the bill and have seen in it several important issues that I will wish to consider much further. And of course as Winston Peters said earlier today New Zealand First has already written to the Prime Minister seeking a whole raft of changes. If that is the case with us it is likely also to be the case with special-interest groups especially and with very large numbers of members of the public.This is not a simple bill. It is complex; even the most cursory reading will demonstrate that. There are many options possible within its provisions especially I suggest those regarding oversight and supervision issues. These matters take time to understand and they take time to consider. It takes time to look at other possible options and it takes time to write all of that down and submit it through the process. Time is needed for proper consideration and that is what the time frame in this motion is I think quite deliberately avoiding.The Government is in fact treating the public with contempt for that reason by not giving adequate time for submissions. It knows that it is doing that and it is doing it quite deliberately. The public needs to know the contempt in which it is being held in this way. Firstly in the context of matters of high public interest—and there have been few issues of higher public interest in recent times—secondly in the context of matters of high importance to our freedoms and democracy which this unarguably involves and thirdly in the context of the significant complexity that I have mentioned with regard to this particular bill the lack of an adequate time frame is a sad indictment on a Government that is obviously just trying to put an awkward situation behind it. Well that is not a good enough reason to treat the public in this way.Just as disappointing to me has been the lack of argument by Government members opposite. I have waited to hear from them. I have waited to hear good reasons why this motion proposes such a ridiculously short time frame but nothing has been offered. That proves I think the points that I have been making. So for all of those reasons that I and others have stated New Zealand First will certainly oppose the motion.